
m 



'■m 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 




Shelf.f <&7 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






THE 



Christian Ordinances; 



1 • 



BEING 



A HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE PRACTICE 

OF TRINE IMMERSION, THE WASHING 

OF THE SAINTS' FEET AND 

THE LOVE-FEAST. 



By C. H. FORNEY, D. D., 

Editor of The Church Advocate. 



OF CO;' 

S MAY 23 
%> no. Ill, 




HARRISBURG, PA.: 

BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
GENERAL ELDERSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF COD. 

1883. 



'.fin 



THE LIBRARY 

or cdUGfciM 

WASHLNGTOH_ 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1883, by 

Isaac Frazer, D. M. Bare and J. H. Redsecker, 

Board of Publication of the General Eldership of the Church of God, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



TO THE 

GENERAL BROTHERHOOD 

OF THE 

CHURCH OF GOD, 

Whose Motto is : Earnestly Contend for the Faith once 
Delivered to the Saints; 

Whose Accepted and Honored Mission is: The Re-establishment 
of the Church upon Primitive and Apostolic Principles ; 

AND 

Whose Supreme Rule is the Formal Principle of the 

Reformation — The Subjection of the Conscience and the Life to 

the Primary Authority of the Scriptures — 

This Volume is Sincerely Dedicated by 

THE AUTHOR. 



@>geg^v®>- 



X 




I® 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Introduction, 1 

PART I. 

Single Immersion the True Baptism. 

I. The Issue between Baptists, .... T 

II. The Force of Previous Concessions, .... 12 

III. The Testimony for Trine Immersion, .... 18 

IY. Testimony of the Early Fathers, ... 26 

V. The First Witnesses for Trine Immersion, . 35 

YI. Testimony in Favor of Immersion before Anno 

Domini 200, .42 

VII. From the Apostolic Fathers to Tertullian, . 49 

VIII. Trine Immersion based on Tradition, .... 57 

IX. The Innovations based on Tradition, . . . 66 

X. Origin of Trine Immersion, ........ 78 

PART II. 

The Apostolic Practice of Feet-Washing. 

I. The Ultimate Authority for an Ordinance, . . 89 

II. The Communion in the New Testament, . . 93 

III. Feet-Washing in the New Testament, ... 97 

IV. The Post-Apostolic Practice of Feet- Washing, 103 
V. Feet-Washing has the Elements of an Ordi- 
nance — Being a Quaker's Views on Feet- 
Washing, 114 

VI. Doctor William Bohmer on Feet- Washing, . . 121 



VI CONTENTS. 

PART II L 

The Love-Feast and the Communion. 

I. The Questions Stated, . 131 

II. The Communion a Divine Institution Complete 

in Itself, .... 143 

III. Paul, Peter and Jude on the Agape, 150 

IY. The Agape in Ecclesiastical History, . .... 158 

Y. Is the Agape a Divine Institution ? . . . . 164 
YI. The Agape not an Ordinance according to Paul, 

Peter and Jude, 170 

YIL Christ did not Institute the Agape, .... 1T6 

YIII. The Proper Name for the Communion, . . . 183 

IX. Breaking Bread 191 




INTRODUCTION. 




HE author of this work has the unusual statement 
to make to the reader that he has very reluctantly 
prepared it for the press, and that it is published 
against his earnest and persistent protest. He has, how- 
ever, not the less devoted time and talent with much as- 
siduity to its preparation ; and now submits it to the judg- 
ment of his kind and generous readers, with the hope that 
it may in some measure assist them in coming to right 
conclusions respecting the number, form and character of 
the Christian ordinances. 

This book owes its origin to the action of the General 
Eldership of the Church of God, in general assembly con- 
vened at Findlay, Ohio, in the year A. D. 1881. A short 
time prior to that meeting the author, in answer to certain 
questions, had published a series of editorials in The Church 
Advocate on " The Love-feast and the Communion." They 
made such a favorable impression upon the minds of the 
members of the General Eldership that at its meeting, as 
above indicated, a resolution was adopted directing the 
Board of Publication to have the series published in more 
permanent and easily accessible form. The author had 
accepted this action as more complimentary than serious. 
But the Board, after a delay of a year and a half, became 
impressed with the mandatory character of the action of 
the General Eldership, and resolved to carry out its instruc- 
tion. It was, however, thought advisable to add to the 
series of articles on the u Love-feast and the Communion" 



I INTKODUCTION. 

two other series, the one on the Apostolic and post- Apostolic 
practice of feet-washing, and the other on trine immersion, 
thus making a far more complete work, and answering, in 
a measure, at least, a somewhat general demand for a work 
on the history of these religious institutions. 

When, however, the labor of preparing these editorials 
for publication in this permanent form was entered upon 
it soon became an evident fact that a thorough revision 
would be necessary in order fully to adapt them to take 
a place among the standard literature of the Church. Ac- 
cordingly the form of these respective series was entirely 
changed ; the greater part of the series on feet- washing, 
and the entire series on trine immersion, were rewritten ; 
the fifth and sixth chapters were added to the discussion 
on feet-washing, and the series on trine immersion was en- 
larged to nearly twice its original length by the addition 
of a vast amount of valuable historical matter. The work 
may now, without affectation or over-estimation, be justly 
regarded as presenting the particular phases of the questions- 
discussed in as complete and comprehensive a manner as 
any work extant. 

The reader will find no abstruse dialectical discussion, 
but an orderly and plain presentation of historical facts. 
These facts are so arranged as to show their immediate 
bearing on the questions at issue. In Part I will be found 
a searching investigation of the claim that trine immersion 
can be historically traced to the time of the Apostles. That 
this claim cannot be sustained is made manifest by the re- 
duplication of the most convincing historical proof. This 
mode of baptism is hence rejected; not alone, however, 
because the practice of it cannot be traced to the Apostles ; 
but, in addition to this, because the evidence seems con- 
clusively to indicate that it was not the original practice 



INTRODUCTION. 3 

and institution of Christ, but was introduced toward the 
close of the second century. 

In Part II, by a similar process of reasoning, the practice 
of washing the saints 1 feet as a religious rite is traced in 
the Apostolic and post- Apostolic times. The evidence here 
seems to be somewhat stronger than in the case of trine 
immersion, and yet in itself is pronounced insufficient as 
a basis upon which to establish an ordinance. But this 
testimony, taken in connection with the example and pre- 
cept of Christ, as recorded in John's Gospel, and the spe- 
cific mention of the practice by Paul, is regarded as amply 
sufficient to warrant the practice of this beautiful ceremony 
as a religious ordinance. The opinion that Christ instituted 
this rite is confirmed by the testimony of an eminent Quaker 
of the eighteenth century, and by the critical analysis of 
Doctor William Bohmer, an accomplished German scholar. 

In Part III the historical argument in favor of the Agape, 
or full meal, in connection with the Communion is dis- 
cussed. The practice is more fully and clearly sustained 
than either trine immersion or the washing of the saints' 
feet, but it is not accepted as an ordinance of divine insti- 
tution, because there is wanting the divine command, or 
any favoring indications in the Scriptures. Incidentally 
the question of weekly Communion is discussed, and a care- 
ful investigation is made of the meaning of "breaking 
bread," as found in the Acts. 

The author would have each reader begin the perusal of 
this book with a mind as thoroughly free from bias or pre- 
judice as may be possible, and with a supreme purpose to 
accept and practice whatever may fairly be found in, or 
deduced from, the word of God. We claim but one ulti- 
mate reason for any ceremonial practice — that it have the 
will and word of God for the basis upon which it rests. 



4 INTRODUCTION. 

We reject nothing but for the all-sufficient reason that it 
lacks divine authority. The authority, for or against a 
practice, of the church or of tradition, unsupported by the 
Scriptures, cannot bind our consciences. That the Divine 
Spirit may guide us into all truth is our paramount desire ; 
that the blessing of the Triune Grod may accompany this 
book is our earnest prayer. 




PART I. 

SINGLE IMMERSION THE TRUE BAPTISM. 



& 



<§; 




Chapter I. 

The Issues between Baptists. 

HERE is, perhaps, not a single truth, nor an ordi- 
nance of the Christian religion, which has not been 
either disputed, denied, perverted, or wholly rejected. 
The true and the right in religion have always needed 
apologists and defenders. Error, like weeds, springs up 
of itself, and attains strength and maturity without culti- 
vation or protection. Its source and origin are often so 
mysterious and so wholly obscured that it claims divine 
paternity or Apostolic origin with a marvelous measure of 
success. The advocates of the true ways of the Lord 
always meet with opposition. The truth which they rep- 
resent will be attacked; the ordinances for which they 
contend will be disputed or rejected. 

The experience of the Church of God has been for fifty 
years an illustration of the position here stated. We have 
adopted the word of God as our only rule of faith and 
practice ; and our determination to accept all the doctrines 
and ordinances which can be established by its teachings 
has been invariably and publicly proclaimed. And these 
ordinances we deem it our duty to practice according to 



8 BAPTISTS HOW DIVIDED. 

the example of Christ and his Apostles, in so far as we may 
be in anywise able to determine said practice. But we 
meet with persistent opposition. This opposition is at 
times less honorable in its methods than should be ex- 
pected. Secretly, like wolves among sheep, men steal 
among innocent church members and seek to turn them 
to a faith other than that which we have found taught in 
God's word. Specious pleas for other views are printed 
in cheap form and circulated by private enterprise, whereby 
other views of Christian doctrine and religious ordinances 
are sought to be established. This necessitates an exami- 
nation of the grounds upon which such views appeal to us 
for acceptance. Hence this discussion of a question which 
in the main has been settled for centuries. 

On the subject of baptism there are two grand divisions 
into which the Christian army falls. The one portion 
holds to baptism by immersion (as it is commonly stated) ; 
the other holds to baptism by affusion. But while the 
latter are but slightly divided among themselves relative to 
mode, the great body of them practicing sprinkling, the 
former are divided into two or three hostile parties. The 
Greek Church, together with a few small bodies of Amer- 
ican and continental Christians, practice trine immersion ; 
while the great body of Baptists, so-called, and a number 
of Churches of different names, practice single immersion. 
The Church of God classes itself among those who prac- 
tice single immersion, believing this to have been the orig- 
inal action and mode of baptism as instituted and practiced 
by Christ and his Apostles. To the defense of this position 
we are here invited. And we accept the honor and assume 
the duty, confident that whatever may be the verdict, the 
purpose and the object have been alike honest and in 
strictest fidelity to the truth. 



THE DOCUMENTS TO BE EXAMINED. 9 

We can say in advance that our arguments and positions 
are not likely to be new to those who have thoroughly in- 
vestigated the subject. The entire body of literature 
touching the point at issue is limited, thus affording but 
little opportunity for the development of any new facts. 
The appeal of our opponents is most confidently made to 
the history of the early church, whereby it is attempted 
to raise a reasonable presumption in favor of trine immer- 
sion as the Apostolic practice and the Divine institution. 
This history, so far as this rite is concerned, we propose 
to examine. We shall inquire into the historical cita- 
tions upon which our opponents rely in their attempts to 
trace trine immersion to the Apostles, or to establish the 
Apostolic origin of single immersion. 

That our readers may be sure that we do not misrepre- 
sent our opponents, we shall advise them at this point of 
the source of our information. In 1874, a small tract was 
published at Urbana, Illinois, entitled "The Origin of Sin- 
gle Immersion." It is a letter addressed to one of the lead- 
ing advocates of trine immersion, together with the answer 
thereto. The writer of the letter proposed u a few histor- 
ical questions respecting the origin of single immersion," 
which are fully answered by his respondent. Two years 
earlier the writer of the above-noted letter had published 
a pamphlet with the elaborate title, "Trine Immersion 
Traced to the Apostles ; Being a Collection of Historical 
Quotations from Modern and Ancient Authors, proving 
that A Three- Fold Immersion was the only method of 
baptizing ever practiced by the Apostles and their imme- 
diate successors." It is the historical testimony thus her- 
alded which we propose to examine. These writers not 
only attempt, by their array of historical testimony, to 
prove the Apostolic practice of trine immersion, but, on 



10 SOME POINTS SETTLED. 

the other hand, they claim to furnish us with historic proof 
of the post- Apostolic origin of single immersion, and in this 
two fold manner to establish the incorrectness of our posi- 
tion. The origin of trine immersion is the great question. 
Everything else as between us and those whose practice in 
this respect differs from ours is of secondary, we might say 
of no, moment until this point is settled. Hence, by whom 
single immersion was introduced, if it was not the original 
practice, is only of moment as collateral proof, and requires 
no investigation at our hands. Neither is it material what 
gave rise to the change in the mode of baptism from trine 
to single immersion, if the former was the original prac- 
tice. These and other questions are raised in the first 
pamphlet referred to above ; but we do not find it of any 
importance to burden our pages with a discussion of points 
of this character, since they only become of interest when 
adequate proof has been furnished that trine immersion 
was the practice of Christ and the Apostles. 

In all discussions or controversies it is important to start 
out with propositions that are either self-evident or gener- 
ally conceded. This we can do in this investigation. There 
are at least two points in this controversy which have been 
fully settled. These points are : 

1. That trine immersion was practiced in the early part 
of the third century, and that it had become the quite gen- 
eral practice of the main body of the Catholic Church, so 
known then, before the close of the third century. 

2. That from about the middle of the fourth century 
single immersion began (again) to take the place of trine 
immersion, and that thenceforth it gradually prevailed in 
all parts of Christendom, except in the Greek Church and 
among minor sects, and does so prevail to this day where 
immersion is practiced. 



SOME POINTS SETTLED. 



11 



These points we do not pretend to question ; and hence 
in so far we are free to concede that those who contend for 
trine immersion are right. But we need constantly to bear 
in mind just how far this carries us toward the goal whither 
our opponents would lead us. Just so far, for the present, 
that trine immersion was practiced early in the third cen- 
tury. We cannot go a step further. 



|K®V 



fc^o 





Chaptee II. 

The Force of our Previous Concessions. 

HEN the concession is made, as in our previous 
chapter, that in the early part of the third cen- 
tury trine immersion was practiced, and that it be- 
came quite general before the close of that century, the 
question arises, What bearing has this concession, this fact, 
on the point at issue? In other words: Do the two points 
which we have been willing to accept as settled furnish 
the requisite premises from which to draw the conclusion 
of our opponents that trine immersion is of Divine or Apos- 
tolic origin? Certainly not. No logician would tarnish 
his reputation by making such an affirmation. These 
points do not settle the question as to the origin of single 
immersion. They do not even touch it. The fact that 
trine immersion was not only known, but generally prac- 
ticed by the end of the third century ; the fact that it was 
practiced, to some extent, at least before the middle or at 
the beginning of the third century, as we have admitted, 
does not in itself prove that it was instituted by Christ and 
practiced by the Apostles. And yet, despite this fact, we 
shall show that the weight of historical testimony is of even 
more recent times than the date to which our first point 
refers. 

(12) 



INFANT BAPTISM EST EARLY TIMES. 13 

But we are not willing to rest the position here taken 
on a mere affirmation. It is a conceded principle that 
what holds good in one case equally holds good in all like 
cases ; that like rules govern like facts. Hence, what we 
are disposed to grant or demand in one case, we shall not 
hesitate to demand or grant in all similar cases. If we are 
to accept one practice as Apostolic or Christly in its origin, 
which existed early in the third century of the Christian 
era, so will we, for no other reason, ask that our opponents 
grant a similar origin to any thing else then existing and 
claiming divine origin. And what we are disposed to ask 
we shall not feel disinclined to grant. Are our opponents 
willing to be governed by this principle ? They find trine 
immersion in the third century. They find authors in the 
third century possibly who claim that it was practiced by 
the Apostles, but of such practice they can find no exam- 
ples and can produce no evidence. Upon the strength of 
the statements made by these authors, and upon their 
opinions, they insist that trine immersion is of Apostolic 
prigin. They should strive to be consistent. Tertullian 
is the first author who mentions trine immersion, but he 
does not claim that it was instituted by Christ. Just what 
he says, and what weight to attach to his testimony, we do 
not now inquire. That he testifies to the practice of trine 
immersion we now state as a simple fact. But Tertullian 
also testifies to the practice of infant baptism in his time, 
though advocates of this practice call him " that ancient ad- 
versary," because he argues in favor of delaying it, though 
we believe he nowhere speaks of it or opposes it as un- 
scriptural or as an innovation. Irenseus, who lived before 
Tertullian, is also said to have written of infant baptism. 
He was a scholar of Poly carp, " through whom he may be 
regarded as having sat at the feet of St. John, the Apostle 



14 WANT OF PROOF FOR TRINE IMMERSION. 

and Evangelist. " But these authors speak of infant baptism 
as a matter of fact, and are not giving opinions. They 
testify as strongly to its Apostolic origin as others do to the 
Apostolic origin of trine immersion. Now, if their testi- 
mony in the one case is good, why is that of others not 
good in the other ? If the existence of trine immersion in 
the third century, together with the then existing tradition 
that it was of Apostolic origin, is to be accepted as conclu- 
sive of such origin, why are not similar testimony and tra- 
dition conclusive in the case of infant baptism? Our 
answer is as follows : The conclusion in the one case is as 
legitimate as in the other. We reject both, because we 
do not find them instituted by Christ or practiced by his 
immediate Disciples and Apostles. In the case of feet- 
washing the facts are reversed. There we find a command 
given by Christ, and this command taught and obeyed by 
the Disciples. Hence we accept that as an ordinance. Here 
we consistently reject both infant baptism and trine im- 
mersion, because their earliest observance is not connected 
with a command of Christ or practice by the Apostles. 
Our opponents on single immersion inconsistently, and for 
no good reason, accept the testimony of history and tradi- 
tion for trine immersion, and reject it for infant baptism. 

Now, in view of these evident and conclusive principles, 
it must be, at least, clearly evident what the force of the 
admission is which we made in our first point. It will, 
also, the more be clear that in examining testimony of a 
historical character, we would not need to concern ourselves 
with anything that took place in the third century, or since 
the time of Tertullian, or, at least, after A. D. 300. For 
when our opponents insist on proving the origin of single 
immersion, after the close of the third century, they intro- 
duce a question about which we do not need to trouble 
ourselves, at least not in a direct maimer. That single im- 



OTHER INNOVATIONS. 15 

mersion was revived in the fourth century, we know ; but 
just when, and how, and bjwhom, are questions that may 
be laid aside. It is the origin of trine immersion into 
which we are inquiring. And here the one great thing, on 
the part of our adversaries, which is lacking to make their 
argument conclusive, is the PROOF THAT TRINE IMMERSION 
IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN, THAT IT WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST. 

•It is a question of fact, and not of opinion, or of tradition. 
It is too hazardous to accept every practice and doctrine 
which these early authors represent as having come down 
the stream of tradition. If we should accept trine immer- 
sion because it was already practiced in Tertullian's time, 
and was claimed soon after as an Apostolic tradition; for 
the same reason we should have to receive every thing 
else which marred the symmetry of the church in those 
times, and encumbered divinely instituted ordinances. We 
should then adopt the sign of the cross, the sacramental 
use of honey, and the anointing with oil in connection with 
baptism. These rest upon the same authority with trine 
immersion. 

Neither, in this controversy, can we be called upon to 
prove a negative, and so to establish the fact that trine im- 
mersion was not of Apostolic origin, or was not practiced 
in the first and second centuries. We need simply to point 
to the total absence of proof that it was, unless such proof 
shouldl)e produced ; to the fact that it finds no place in 
the New Testament ; to the fact that it was defended on 
the ground of tradition alone, just like many other un- 
scriptural practices. And this, of course, we shall do. 
But otherwise, until our friends who advocate trine immer- 
sion produce some reliable evidence that it was instituted 
by Christ, and practiced by his Apostles, the advocates of 
single immersion have but little to do. 

As to the origin of single immersion in post-Tertullian 



16 EUNOMIUS AND SINGLE IMMERSION. 

times there is not much dispute, although there is some 
difference of opinions as to the leading agent. It is gen- 
erally affirmed that, in the fourth century, single immersion 
had its origin with one Eunomius, bishop of Cyzicum, prob- 
ably from A. D. 360 to 394, in which year he died (Lard- 
ner). We care not to dispute this point, though it was 
doubted in a much earlier age. Probably Eunomius in 
one place, and others in other places and at different times, 
re-introduced single immersion both before and after A. D. 
400 ; but we deny the implied assumption that trine im- 
mersion had been the practice from the days of the Apostles 
down to that time. We are going up the stream of history, 
and not down. We have granted all that is claimed as 
early as Tertullian's time, except the universality of trine 
immersion. But in making this concession, and especially 
in granting the agency of Eunomius and others in the re- 
vival or re-introduction of single immersion in the latter 
half of the fourth century and earlier, we in nowise con- 
cede anything touching the position of our opponents on 
the question of the Apostolic origin of trine immersion. 
We do so upon the primary fact of the absence of a word 
of command from Christ directing the performance of trine 
immersion, and the consequent absence of evidence of such 
a practice by the Apostles ; and also upon the generally- 
conceded fact that the stream of tradition, out of which 
trine immersion was fished, also brought down to Tertul- 
lian's time many other unscriptural practices to which the 
church has tenaciously adhered. 

There is also another matter of grave moment that should 
not be overlooked in this connection. We refer to the 
well-known fact that in Tertullian's time, and even some- 
what earlier, there already appeared the germs of the Cath- 
olic Church ; and that those who claimed to belong to it 



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 17 

often ignored in their writings everything outside of said 
Church, and vice versa. Herein is one of the reasons of 
the apparent conflict of historical testimony on many points, 
and that general chaos which so often seems to reign in the 
historical documents of those early years. This fact largely 
influenced the writers of that period in their views and 
opinions, as is evident in the case of Tertullian himself. 
He became a staunch defender of Montanism. Before that 
he was a "Catholic." The "Shepherd of Hernias" was 
then already extant. Tertullian had praised this book as 
a Catholic, but he abused and denounced it as a Montanist 
Besides this, the important fact should be kept in mind 
that the churches in the various countries in which they 
were established were not in such close communication, 
nor as thoroughly unified and bound together as a given 
Church or denomination is at the present time. The church 
in one country often drifted entirely away from the prevail- 
ing practices and doctrines of the churches in other coun- 
tries. On this account the testimony of a bishop even like 
Tertullian may be very misleading as to any other country 
than the one in which he lived and about which he testifies. 
And even on this question there is at least good ground 
for advising our readers in advance of this fact. Hence, 
in so far as our discussion has already carried us, there is 
nothing logically and conclusively established in favor of 
trine immersion, and that for the simple reason that the 
point at issue, being a question of fact, has no authentic 
testimony in its favor for Apostolic times in the views and 
practices of a later period. Our opponents here generally 
assume the strategical point which they ought to, but which 
they cannot, prove — the practice, by the Apostles and Apos- 
tolic Fathers, in obedience to Christ's word of command, 
of a threefold immersion for the one baptism. 
2 




Chapter III 

The Testimony for Trine Immersion, 

E have given our readers assurance that the requi- 
site testimony connecting the practice of trine 
immersion, in the third century, with Apostolic 
example cannot be produced. We do not ask them, in so 
critical a matter as this, either to rely simply upon our af- 
firmation, or to depend upon such historical' testimony as 
we might be disposed to place before them. We shall hence 
proceed to furnish the testimony cited by our friends who 
believe in trine immersion, and then show of how much 
weight in a controversy this testimony really is. They 
frequently cite Doctor Wall, Doctor Hinton, and other 
modern authors. But these we dismiss at once, for their 
testimony is wholly second-handed. They must rely upon 
ancient authors to confirm their testimony ; and we prefer 
to have these ancient authors cited at once. It is a recog- 
nized principle in all rules of evidence, that in testifying 
to a question of fact no man is a competent witness who lived 
after the fact, except in so far as he cites authorities or witnesses 
who lived at the time. Doctor Wall is only a witness to 
facts in his time, and is no better as an authority than any 
other person of requisite information. The same is true 
of Doctor Hinton. He lived long after the age in which 
trine immersion is said to have prevailed, and so cannot be 

(18) 



MODERN WITNESSES REJECTED. 19 

a competent witness to a matter of fact in the third cen- 
tury. 

In thus rejecting the testimony of authors in modern 
times we do simply what we have a perfect right to do 
and what is done by controvertialists everywhere. This 
is in fullest accordance with the rules governing all pro- 
ceedings in courts of justice. That which they affirm is 
not called in question ; but their affirmations must be based- 
upon the testimony of older witnesses, and we demand 
that these latter be produced. If this is not possible, 
whence did these modern witnesses derive their informa- 
tion ? In matters of opinion or of exegesis the testimony 
of learned men of our times is as good as, and perhaps bet- 
ter than, that of the Fathers ; but in matters of fact we 
must throw out all who were not eye-witnesses. In con- 
firmation of this view we can cite authorities in abundance, 
and among them the very men who would be most bene- 
fited by a contrary rule. Common sense dictates that tes- 
timony to a matter of fact can only be received from those 
who witnessed the fact. Testimony to the existence of an 
opinion or belief is subject to the same rule, since opinions 
and beliefs are facts. What weight should be attached to 
an opinion in a case like the present, touching the origin 
of trine immersion, we shall examine later. 

With this matter definitely settled, we are prepared to 
hear testimony. On trine immersion, Sozomen, after 
modern authors, is usually the first witness cited. Can he 
be allowed to testify ? Only as to facts of which he was 
a witness, and to the existence of opinions and traditions 
in his time. With Sozomen, the historian, is usually 
coupled Theodoret, the theologian, because their testimony 
bears on the same point, and was delivered nearly at the 
same time. They were living cotemporaneously. Sozo- 



20 SOZOMEN AND THEODORET. 

men was a lawyer, at Constantinople, as well as. a church 
historian, and closed his life and labors about A. D. 440. 
Theodoret was bishop of Cyrus, in Syria, closing his use- 
ful career about A. D. 457. We have already laid it down 
as a settled point that trine immersion existed more than 
a century before these dates ; also, that single immersion 
had been revived some time before this, and so might rea- 
sonably dismiss these witnesses. But that our readers 
may see what weight is to be attached to their testimony, 
we shall produce it, and also briefly examine it. 

The testimony of Theodoret is as follows : 

"He (Eunomius) subverted the law of holy baptism, 
which had been handed down from the beginning from the 
Lord, and from the Apostles, and made a contrary law, as- 
serting that it was not necessary to immerse the candidate 
for baptism thrice, nor to mention the names of the Trinity, 
but to immerse once only into the death of Christ." 

Sozomen says : " Some say that Eunomius was the first 
who dared to bring forward the notion that the divine bap- 
tism ought to be administered by a single immersion ; and 
to corrupt the tradition that has been handed down from 
the Apostles, and which is still observed among all. But 
whether it was Eunomius or any other person who first in- 
troduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, 1 ' etc. This 
quotation gives the essential part of what this author says 
on the subject. Others are equally indefinite with reference 
to the author of the change spoken of. 

Now, what is this testimony worth ? What does it es- 
tablish ? We will notice, 

1. A few facts concerning this testimony and these wit- 
nesses. Theodoret died in the year A. D. 457. How long 
before this his work on the History of the Church was 
written is not definitely known ; but it closes with the year 



EUSEBIUS, HEGESIPPUS, AND SOCRATES. 21 

427. The most important part about it, touching our 
present subject, is that it embraces only a century ; or, to 
be more precise, one hundred and two years, from 325 to 
427. Hence, his testimony is not so valuable, since he 
does not inquire into historical facts which fall within an 
earlier period. As to baptism by a threefold immersion, 
he testifies that it was abandoned by Eunomius, though it 
"had been handed down from the beginning from the 
Lord " by tradition. Whether it was a true or false tradi- 
tion he did not inquire. The history of Hermias Sozo- 
menus covers nearly the same period, or from A. D. 323 
to 423. Sozomen died A. D. 440. His testimony as to 
facts, beliefs and opinions touching trine immersion does 
not carry us beyond A. D. 323, or but two years further 
than the history of Theodoret. But facts to which they 
testify, which could not have come under their own obser- 
vation, we need only accept upon the testimony of others 
who witnessed them. And, at best, their histories do not 
take us further back than the time in which we have al- 
ready granted that trine immersion was practiced. 

2. Church historians at that early day were compara- 
tively numerous, but most of them, like in the case of 
Sozomen and Theodoret, extended their histories over but 
brief periods. Socrates, also a jurist of Constantinople, 
composed a history extending from A. D. 306 to 439. He 
does not, we believe, cast any light on this question. It 
was, like the works of Sozomen and Theodoret, "a con- 
tinuation^ of an earlier history. Eusebius is called the 
father of church history. He wrote in the first half of the 
fourth century. His church history begins with the birth 
of Christ, and closes with the year 324. It is quite valu- 
able in many respects, but it does not help our opponents 
in this controversy. While in several places he speaks of 



22 TESTIMONY OF THEODORET AND SOZOMEN. 

baptism, lie nowhere alludes to trine immersion as the 
original and Apostolic mode. He was preceded by Hege- 
sippus, who lived in the middle of the second century. 
Only a few fragments of his work have been preserved ; 
but these, while they refer to the Hemerobaptists, and to 
various points in the practice of the church, do also main- 
tain complete silence on the subject of trine immersion. 
Now, it is rather singular that these earlier historians are 
so wholly silent on this point, if trine immersion was then 
'practiced. Does it not seem apparent that their silence 
militates against the assumption that such a practice ex- 
isted in those early ages of the church to which their his- 
tories specially relate? At any rate, later historians did 
not derive the information from them that trine immersion 
was handed down from the Apostles. It looks very much 
as if that were an opinion based upon exegesis, and not a 
fact of authentic history. 

3. Though already partly answered, we will still raise 
the question touching Sozomen and Theodoret, To what 
are they capable of testifying? To facts that came under 
their personal observation. If they testify to events be- 
fore their time it must be upon the authority of others 
who were witnesses. They both testify that Eunomius 
favored single immersion ; but Sozomen' s testimony is of 
such a character as to cast doubt on the statement that Eu- 
nomius re-introduced single immersion. Hence, as far as 
this testimony is concerned, single immersion may have 
been practiced long before the time of Eunomius. For 
Sozomen says, " Some say that Eunomius was the first who 
dared to bring forward the notion that the Divine baptism 
ought to be administered by a single immersion." Further 
on he says : "Whether it was Eunomius or any other per- 
son." Observe that Sozomen lived seventeen years nearer 



TESTIMONY OF THEODORET AND SOZOMEN". 23 

the time in which Eunomius flourished than did Theo- 
doret, yet he was not as positive in his testimony that Eu- 
nomius introduced single immersion as Theodoret. Besides, 
Sozomen lived nearer to Cyzicum, of which Eunomius was 
bishop, than did Theodoret. Between the people of Con- 
stantinople, where Sozomen lived, and those of Cappadocia 
and Cyzicum, where Eunomius flourished, there was con- 
stant communication, Cyzicum being not over seventy 
miles from Constantinople. But between Cappadocia and 
Syria there was little intercourse. It was also at Constan- 
tinople where Eunomius was tried for heresy. And being 
formally condemned for teaching the anomian doctrine of 
the Trinity, it is quite possible that errors and practices 
were ascribed to him incorrectly. Hence the uncertainty 
of the historian most 1'ikely to know. And, at any rate, 
if these two witnesses could not agree touching a matter 
of such recent ' occurrence, what dependence is to be put 
upon their testimony in reference to a matter of fact four 
hundred years old ? 

4. It is also of moment to observe that neither of these 
witnesses testifies as to the practice of trine or single immer- 
sion outside of what was then already called the Catholic 
Church. Sozomen expressly designates the body of which 
he writes, "The Catholic Church." It is well known that 
large bodies of Christians were then already regarded as out- 
side the Catholic Church, and that the truth, in many in- 
stances, is to be found among them. It was common, as it 
yet is, among writers in the Catholic Church, to ignore these 
outside bodies altogether, or to make claims of antiquity for 
their own practices and ordinances not borne out by impar- 
tial history. Theodoret and Sozomen may justly be classed 
among such historians, and their testimony may relate ex- 
clusively to practices in the Catholic Church, and to the 



24 TESTIMONY OF THEODOEET AND SOZOMEN. 

claims of Apostolic authority for the same. This may ap- 
pear more clearly when farther investigation has been 
made. Hence, outside the Catholic Church, and before 
its organization, and so before the time of Eunomius, sin- 
gle immersion may have prevailed for aught these wit- 
nesses say. 

5. Since these two witnesses do not positively testify as 
to who introduced single immersion, it follows that the 
documentary proof then extant was either conflicting or 
silent on this point. Then, too, there could be nothing 
positive as to time when single immersion was introduced 
into the Catholic Church. Sozomen declares that " some 
say " Eunomius introduced single immersion. He does not 
know ; does not pretend to determine ; could not determine 
who. He, a writer of an ecclesiastical history, born near 
the time when Eunomius was adjudged guilty of heresy, 
and living in the very city where the trial took place, and 
within seventy miles of the church of which Eunomius 
was bishop, was not able to determine the assumed fact 
that Eunomius introduced single immersion ! Theodoret, 
living across the mountains in Syria, and among a people 
who had no intercourse of moment with the Cappadocians, 
was one of the "some" who said it was Eunomius. Other 
" some" asserted differently. Here, then, is one witness, 
unconfirmed by documentary evidence, who says it was 
Eunomius ; while another witness, of his own time, de- 
clares that others believed differently. Now, it is some- 
what strange that Sozomen, a historian, did not know in 
A. D. 440 who introduced single immersion, claimed to 
have had an existence less than a century, and that some 
modern authors should know it so positively, and yet 
should only have the testimony, such as it is, of Sozomen 
and Theodoret ! 



APOSTOLIC TRADITION. 25 

Weak and defective as the testimony is which we have 
been examining touching the origin of single immersion, 
we are willing to accept it as proving that trine immersion 
was generally practiced in the Catholic Church in the latter 
half of the fourth century. But there still remains a pe- 
riod of nearly four hundred years about which these wit- 
nesses do not, and cannot, testify, except upon docu- 
mentary evidence. If they did, their testimony would be 
rejected as worthless in any court of justice, or according 
to the universally accepted rules of evidence. If they 
cannot agree as to a matter of fact of such supposed re- 
cent date as the introduction of single immersion by Euno- 
mius, how are they to know of a certainty of much older 
facts? Tradition is utterly unreliable. They must be 
supported by documentary evidence. Eminent authorities 
support us in this view. Writing of diocesan episcopacy, 
Dr. Miller, formerly professor of ecclesiastical history in 
Princeton Theological Seminary, says on a point every 
way similar to this : " Suffer me, my brethren, again to 
remind you of the principle upon which we proceed in 
this part of our inquiry. If it would be demonstrated 
from the writings of the Fathers, that in one hundred, or 
even in fifty years [in four years or four centuries, he re- 
marks in another place], after the death of the last Apostle? 
the system of diocesan episcopacy had been generally 
adopted in the church, it would be nothing to the purpose." 

It is, therefore, of no account to prove that trine im- 
mersion prevailed in the Catholic Church, A. D. 440, or 
during the hundred years preceding, if Christ did not in- 
stitute it. And as for tradition respecting its Apostolic 
origin, that has no weight, as we shall have occasion to 

show in a subsequent chapter. 




Chaptee IV. 

Testimony of the Early Fathers. 

B have examined the testimony of two church 
historians touching the practice of trine immer- 
sion, in order to discover the extent of their 
knowledge with reference to the antiquity of this mode of 
baptism. As their testimony covers a period of one hun- 
dred years, from A. D. 323 to 427, during the whole of 
which they seem to affirm the existence of this practice, it 
is evident that they cannot speak from personal knowledge. 
We have, hence, a perfect right to ask for the testimony of 
other witnesses. We are freely accommodated in this re- 
spect, as our opponents recognize the justice of our de- 
mand. The first witness cited is Chrysostom. He assures 
us that "Christ delivered to his disciples one baptism in 
three immersions of the body, when he said to them, ' Go 
teach all nations,' " &c. 

It would be a justifiable act to reject this testimony en- 
tirely, if it may be dignified as testimony. The reason is, 
that it does not state a matter of fact at all, but simply 
gives an opinion. He does not say that trine immersion 
was practiced in his day, although we are ready to concede 
that it was. But his testimony is worthless to establish 

(26) 






THE TESTIMONY OF CHRYSOSTOM. 27 

that fact. Chrysostom wrote near the close of the fourth 
century. He is a competent witness as to what the prac- 
tice of the church was in his time ; but he cannot testify 
as to what Christ "delivered to his disciples." He is no 
better witness for a fact which transpired three hundred 
and fifty years before his time, than a man now is, though 
over one thousand eight hundred years have elapsed since 
it occurred. That the opinion cited as testimony was the 
prevailing opinion in the time of Chrysostom, we are not 
averse to granting ; and yet he does not say so, and hence 
his testimony only establishes his own opinion. And as 
touching his opinion, we justly say as Augustine did of 
the authority of Cyprian : £fc His writings I hold not to be 
canonical, but examine them by the canonical writings; 
and in them, what agreeth with the authority of divine 
Scripture I accept, with his praise ; what agreeth not I re- 
ject, with his leave." We are now as competent to de- 
termine what Christ delivered to his Disciples, as found in 
the words that Chrysostom quotes, as he was, and so can- 
not bow to his authority. So all authorities on rules of 
evidence decide. 

That we are not putting it too strongly when we say that 
the words quoted from Chrysostom do not prove that trine 
immersion was practiced in his day can be readily illus- 
trated. Mark, he does not say it was practiced. Mr. Chrys- 
tal, in his History of the Modes of Baptism, declares just as 
unequivocally as Chrysostom, that " Christ delivered one 
baptism in three immersions." Yet Mr. Chrystal was an 
Episcopalian, and practiced as his Church does — sprinkling, 
and not trine immersion. So, from all that Chrysostom 
says, he may not have practiced trine immersion ; although 
from other testimony we know that this mode of baptism 
was practiced in his time and country. He was a fellow- 



28 THE TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTINE. 

countryman of Theodoret, and lived between forty and 
fifty years earlier. 

The next witness is Augustine. He was nearly cotem- 
poraneous with Chrysostom, as the latter died in A. D. 
407, and the former was not baptized until A. D. 387. He 
was baptized by Ambrose, at Milan, in Italy, by what is 
often called the Ambrosian method of baptizing, indicating 
that it was sectional. He is supposed to have practiced 
trine immersion, for he says: "After you professed your 
belief, three times did we submerge your heads in the 
sacred fountain." This is all of his testimony that we have 
furnished us; and, supposing he refers to baptism, it is 
conclusive that he practiced trine immersion. But it will 
be noted that we are still nearly four hundred years from 
Christ, in the midst of a period in church history when the 
church was full of errors and heresies. We have not yet 
ascended to the age in which the Apostolic Fathers lived, 
and preached, and wrote. And those most intimately ac- 
quainted with the history of those early centuries know 
how many things were attributed to Christ and his Apos- 
tles of which they were not the authors. These men base 
their views on two things, viz: Tradition, generally so 
utterly worthless; and the interpretation of Christ's words, 
"Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This interpretation is de- 
cidedly suspicious the more natural it may appear to some. 
And especially so when we take into account the fact that 
there is an entire absence of any indications of such an 
interpretation until after the time of the Apostolic Fathers. 

The next witness is Ambrose, but fourteen years the 
senior of Augustine, having been born in A. D. 340. He 
became Bishop of Milan in A. D. 374. We have already 
referred to the Ambrosian method of baptizing, and have 



THE TESTIMONY OF AMBEOSE. 29 

assumed that this was trine immersion. Yet this is not 
certain. Ambrose himself speaks only of two immersions, 
a possible indication that the second and third were grad- 
ually added. He says: "Thou wast asked, 'Dost thou 
believe in God the Father Almighty ? ' Thou saidst, 'I do 
believe,' and wast immersed, that is, thou wast buried. 
Thou wast asked again, Dost thou believe on our Lord 
Jesus Christ and his crucifixion? Thou saidst, T believe,' 
and wast immersed again, and so wast buried with Christ." 
We do not say that three actions were not common under 
Ambrose ; but he certainly does not so testify. An advo- 
cate of trine immersion has acknowledged this. He says : 
u He only speaks of the two first actions in baptism; the 
other, in the name of the Holy Ghost, must be inferred." 
In that way it is easy to derive trine immersion by tradi- 
tion from the Apostles. It is unscientific and misleading. 
It is known to all readers of church historv that the dis- 
tinct personality of the Son was first defined, and not until 
a later Council was the equally distinct personality of the 
Spirit accepted. Hence in the testimony of Ambrose we 
may have a hint as to the origin of trine immersion. We 
do not now affirm this, for it is not in evidence as yet; but 
we have ample reason to believe that such was the origin 
of the threefold immersion or baptism. 

The witness next cited is Basil, who died eighteen years 
earlier than Ambrose, but was born but twelve years earlier, 
in A. D. 328. He was a native of Caesarea, in Cappadocia. 
He studied under the heathen philosophers at Athens, and 
then returned to his native city and became an advocate. 
He w r as ordained a Presbyter in A. D. 362 ; succeeded 
Eusebius as Bishop of Csesarea in A. D. 370, and died in 
379. He is quoted as saying: "In three immersions the 
great mystery of baptism is accomplished." Basil agrees 



30 THE TESTIMONY OF CYRIL. 

with the -other witnesses from this region of the world, and 
so confirms their testimony as to the mode of baptism in 
his time. We are not aware that he says anything with 
reference to the re-introduction of single immersion by 
Eunomius, although he wrote a work of five books against 
Eunomius, entitled "Concerning the Holy Spirit." We 
have no occasion at this point to say anything about his 
testimony, except to note the fact that it speaks simply for 
his time. He does not indicate what the opinions were 
which prevailed relative to its origin. Doubtless he re- 
garded it as of Apostolic origin, like the rest, handed down 
by tradition, as some of them specifically affirm. This 
point will receive special attention in a subsequent chapter. 
The friends of trine immersion delight in referring us to 
Cyril, for the reason that he was born at Jerusalem, where 
he was also successively ordained Deacon, Presbyter, and 
Bishop. His career was a decidedly checkered one, and it 
is matter of doubt whether the fact of his nativity and offi- 
cial life at Jerusalem can add any weight to his testimony. 
He was twice deposed from the episcopate and finally ban- 
ished by the order of the Emperor Valens, A. D. 367. 
He was elected Bishop in A. D. 351, after which date his 
testimony was written. His words are as follows : "After 
these things ye were led to the holy pool of divine baptism, 
as Christ was carried from the cross to the sepulcher. And 
each of you was asked whether he believed, etc., and made 
that saving confession, and descended three times into the 
water, and ascended again." This is clear testimony to the 
practice of trine immersion in the time of Cyril. He, how- 
ever, gives us no light touching the origin of this mode of 
baptism. Whether he believed it to have been instituted 
by Christ or practiced by the Apostles we have no means 
of determining. 



THE APOSTOLIC CANOSTS. 31 

Next in order our opponents introduce the Apostolic 
Canons, claiming that they are to be placed somewhere 
between A. D. 315 and A. D. 200. It is confidently 
claimed that they "can be strictly relied upon in tracing 
Christian baptism from the birth of Cyril, A. D. 315, back 
to A. D. 200." We cannot concur in this opinion. No 
one who knows the historic facts, as now generally accepted, 
with reference to these Canons, will put any dependence 
upon them. One might, with equal propriety, quote the 
Apocrypha. Neander, the great church historian, says 
they are "spurious." With him concur nearly all the 
learned authors of our day. Not only are these Canons 
"spurious;" but there have been made extensive interpo- 
lations. Besides, they are of more recent origin than our 
trine immersion friends are disposed to claim. The con- 
census of opinions on the whole question may be thus 
stated upon eminent authority: " The Constitutiones Apos- 
tolicce were probably written about the end of the third 
century ; while the seventh book, which is essentially an 
abridgment of them, may have belonged to the beginning 
of the fourth century. The Canones Apostolici, which were 
also recognized by the church, were composed at a later 
period." Now, it is the fiftieth of the Apostolic Canons 
which is quoted to establish the practice of a threefold 
immersion. We have no doubt of the existence of this 
mode at that time — in the fourth century — for we have 
other testimony to establish it. But we utterly reject the 
testimony of these Canons when adduced to prove the prac- 
tice of trine immersion before the close of the third century, 
and for the sufficient reason that they were not then in ex- 
istence. The fiftieth Canon reads as follows: "If any 
Bishop or Presbyter do not perform three immersions of one 
initiation, but one immersion, which is given into the death 



32 THE TESTIMONY OF M0NULUS. 

of Christ, let him be deposed. For the Lord did not say, 
4 Baptize into my death,' but, 'Go ye and make Disciples 
of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Do ye, therefore, 
O Bishops, immerse thrice — into one Father, and Son, and 
Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ by the Spirit." 

Doubtless this was the action of some Synod or Council, 
which had authority so to speak to Bishops and Presbyters 
generally within its jurisdiction. But this very Canon, 
which is cited to prove the existence and general practice 
of trine baptism in the Catholic Church, also proves that 
single immersion was then practiced. To what extent no 
one can affirm. We know, however, that practices were 
oftentimes imposed almost as innovations by many of the 
primitive Councils and Synods. And the severity of the 
penalty for violating the Canon indicates the danger. Single 
immersion, then, could not have been unknown, or a new 
thing in isolated communities. Hence, if the claim should 
be allowed that these Canons are valid evidence for the 
practice of trine immersion as early as A. D. 200, as is 
claimed ; then are they also evidence for the existence of 
single immersion at that early date. But it is claimed that 
Eunomius originated single immersion. He was not or- 
dained a Bishop until A. D. 360. Hence, these Canons 
could not have existed earlier. Our opponents must hence 
either reject these Canons as testimony in favor of trine 
immersion in A. D. 200, or else they will have to abandon 
their position that Eunomius originated single immersion. 

The next witness is one Monulus. Who he was, and 
when and where he lived, we have not been able to ascer- 
tain. We accept his testimony upon the authority of 
Cyprian. The latter was converted A. D. 246. He be- 
came bishop of Carthage A. D. 250, and suffered mar- 



THE TESTIMONY OF MODULUS. 33 

tyrdom A. D. 258. It is said by our opponents, that " at 
the famous Council of Carthage" Cyprian is quoted as re- 
porting Monulus as having used the following language : 
"The true doctrine of our holy mother, the Catholic 
Church, hath always, my brethren, been with us, and doth 
yet abide with us, and especially in the article of baptism, 
and the trine immersion wherewith it is celebrated : our 
Lord having said, 'Go ye and baptize the Gentiles, in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit' " 

We have not been able to verify this quotation, though 
we have diligently examined the works of Cyprian. There 
are some rather suspicious circumstances connected with 
it. It is said that this language was used " at the famous 
Council of Carthage." No Ecumenical Council was ever 
held at Carthage. Various provincial councils and synods 
were held there, but they could hardly be regarded as 
"famous." But if Cyprian quotes these words of Mo- 
nulus, it is probable they were spoken at a provincial coun- 
cil held at Carthage about A. D. 251, when a formal in- 
vestigation was made into the case of the "lapsed," who 
had renounced Christianity during the persecution of 
Decius. Cyprian wrote a treatise de Lapsis, in which he 
discusses at length the question whether they should be 
re-baptized when restored. But then the bearing of this 
quotation upon such a question is not apparent. How- 
ever, supposing that there is no mistake about it, and that 
it is genuine, it only serves to establish the fact that trine 
immersion existed in A. D. 251, and that it was practiced 
at Carthage for a considerable period prior to that date. 
As to its origin the testimony is not clear. Trine immer- 
sion is called "the true doctrine of our holy mother, the 
Catholic Church." But this "holy mother" has a large 
3 



34 TEKTULLIAN AND CLEMENT. 

family of unholy children, and we are not in doubt as to 
this one. 

This completes the evidence of trine immersion up to 
the time of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. With 
all its weak points and serious defects, we are not in doubt 
as to the verdict which it justifies. Evidently trine im- 
mersion existed during all the period covered by this tes- 
timony. But this is only what we conceded in advance. 
We admitted in the first chapter of this treatise "that trine 
immersion was practiced in the early part of the third cen- 
tury." The last witness testified in the middle of the third 
century, but assures us that it existed before that date. 
These witnesses, then, only prove -what we were willing to 
grant in advance. It now remains to be seen whether we 
can be driven from our position, that there is no witness 
for trine immersion before A. D. 200. 



® 



>J^A®) 



Chaptek V. 

The first witnesses for trine immersion. 

V HE concurrent testimony of historians and archaeol- 
ogists is that Tertullian is the first author who speaks 
-^- of trine immersion. Clement of Alexandria also 
testifies to the practice of this mode of baptism in Egypt. 
He simply speaks of it as a fact, saying: "Ye were con- 
ducted to a bath, just as Christ was carried to the grave, 
and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of his 
burial." It is worthy of observation that there is nothing 
in this testimony about the " holy mother, the Catholic 
Church," nor about the custom of baptizing with the name 
of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Clement was the 
cotemporary of Tertullian at Carthage, and wrote about the 
same time. He says nothing of the history or origin of 
this practice ; nor does he intimate the extent to which it 
prevailed. An author who did not know that Clement of 
Rome was not an Apostle is not to be trusted on historical 
questions. He died about A. D. 220, the same year in 
which Tertullian is said to have died. 

Tertullian also testifies to the practice of trine immer- 
sion in Egypt, as follows : "Then we are thrice dipped, 
answering somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the 

(35) 



36 THE TESTIMONY OF TEKTULLIAN. 

Gospel." Here we have trine immersion, as conceded in 
the opening of this discussion ; but beyond this it is not 
possible to carry it. We admitted it as an established 
proposition that trine immersion was practiced in the early 
part of the third century, and all this array of testimony is 
insufficient to establish anything more. Tertullian died 
A. D. 220, and wrote his principal works within the last 
twenty years of his life. How long before that date trine 
immersion was practiced he does not in any wise intimate ; 
although, according to the opinion of many learned authors, 
he does testify that it was not instituted by Christ and 
practiced by the Apostles. This point is said to be implied 
in the words, "answering somewhat more than the Lord 
prescribed in the Gospel." We are aware that u respond- 
entes" means to answer; and it is therefore claimed that 
Tertullian means that candidates for baptism were required 
to respond to questions or "things mentioned before bap- 
tism." These translate the word respondentes, pledging. 
This is not its meaning. Besides, such a rendering is not 
in harmony with what follows — " more than the Lord pre- 
scribed." He prescribed immersion, and if they were three 
times immersed it was answering in the discharge of this 
duty " somewhat more than the Lord prescribed in the 
Gospel ;'" or to translate determinavit more literally, "more 
than the Lord determined. 11 Now, to respond is often simply 
to do, in a proper manner, that which has been determined 
that we shall do. And hence to respond somewhat more 
than the Lord determined, may be to be immersed three 
times instead of once. At best the matter is in serious 
doubt so far as its bearing in favor of the Apostolic origin 
of trine immersion is concerned ; and it is possible that it 
is definite testimony against it. Of this we shall have 
more to say in the sequel. 



NO WITNESS BEFORE A. D. 200. 37 

A careful analysis of the testimony submitted will reveal 
the fact that the witnesses cited fall into three distinct 
periods. The historians, Sozomen (died A. D. 440), and 
Theodoret (died A. D. 457), delivered their testimony near 
the middle of the fifth century. The testimony of the 
Apostolic Canons, of Chrysostom (died 407), Augustine 
(died 430), Ambrose (died 397), Basil (died 372), and 
Cyril (died 386), was delivered near the close of v ,he fourth 
centurj^ Monulus testified before A. D. 258, and is to be 
classed with Clement (died 220), and Tertullian (died 
220), whose testimony falls in the first quarter of the third 
century. And these last three are Egyptian witnesses, so 
that their testimony- is not to be credited to the church at 
large. Hence, the witnesses decrease not only in numbers, 
but in the weight of their testimony and in geographical / 
distribution as we ascend toward the period of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers and of the Apostles. This is a very signifi- 
cant fact, and possibly already indicates what may yet 
become an established fact, viz : That trine immersion is 
nothing more than a human innovation, based upon nebul- 
ous tradition, which originated in Egypt and was thence 
transferred to other countries. 

Having furnished the requisite documentary evidence 
to establish the conceded proposition that trine immersion 
was practiced in the beginning of the third century, it is 
but the part of honesty to admit that the plain inference 
from said testimony is that the practice of a threefold im- 
mersion evidently originated somewhat earlier. How much 
earlier, where and by whom we may not be able positively 
to determine ; but we hope to cast some light upon these 
points. We are now prej3ared to affirm, 

That prior to the year A. D. 200, or before the 
time of Tertullian, there is not a single witness 



38 NO WITNESS BEFORE A. D. 200. 

CITED WHO TESTIFIES TO THE PEACTICE OF TRINE IMMER- 
SION. 

We establish this proposition with the tacit consent of 
our opponents. If there are earlier witnesses to this rite 
it is their duty to produce them. The interests of truth 
demand this of its advocates. But in this respect the 
friends of trine immersion have utterly failed of their duty 
if such witnesses can be found. They have advocated and 
defended, as well as practiced, trine immersion for a century 
and upwards; and yet in all that time they have been un- 
able to find an older witness than Tertullian. We are not 
speaking at random. We have before us three of their 
publications bearing on this point, which sustain us in this 
statement. The most important one is entitled U A Debate 
on Trine Immersion, the Lord's Supper, and Feet- Washing." 
The advocate and defender of trine immersion in this de- 
bate was Elder James Quinter, one of the ablest ministers 
of the German Baptist Church. He adduces historical 
testimony in favor of his first proposition — u Trine immer- 
sion is essential to Christian baptism" But he has no wit- 
ness who lived before the time of Tertullian. According 
to Elder Quinter's own words, Tertullian simp]y testifies, 
upon his own personal knowledge, to the practice of trine 
immersion in his time, and says nothing of any earlier wit- 
nesses, so that there is not even an intimation of older wit- 
nesses. 

We also have a smaller work from the pen of Elder 
Quinter, to which we have already had occasion to refer. 
It is entitled, u The Origin of Single Immersion." Finding 
that single immersion was probably re-introduced in the 
early part of the fifth century by Eunomius, Elder Quinter 
assumes that trine immersion, which it supplanted, always 
existed prior to that date. There is no testimony whatever in 



NO WITNESS BEFORE A. D. 200. 39 

this publication to show that trine immersion was practiced 
before A. D. 200. The questions which the publication 
answers did not serve directly to call out such testimony. 

Another work before us, and in which all the historical 
testimony to trine immersion prior to A. D. 400 should be 
cited, is also utterly devoid of all such testimony before 
the time of Tertullian. The title of this publication is 
" Trine Immersion Traced to the Apostles." The author 
claims to have collected historical quotations from modern 
and ancient authors, proving that a threefold immersion 
was " the only method of baptizing ever practiced by the 
Apostles and their immediate successors." We have fur- 
nished our readers all the testimony which his book con- 
tains, and they have noticed that there is not a line of 
evidence from a single witness who lived before A. D. 200, 
or before Tertullian, who died A. D. 220. The author in- 
deed quotes Justin Martyr, who died A. D. 165, and af- 
firms that he has proved that Justin was baptized three 
times — by trine immersion. But Justin does not say so. 
His language is: "Then we bring them to someplace 
where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same 
method of regeneration by which we were regenerated ; 
for they are washed in the water in the name of God the 
Father, Lord of all things, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, 
and of the Holy Spirit." An advocate of single immer- 
sion, who believes in baptismal regeneration, would use 
similar language. Hence, the friends of trine immersion 
have failed to bring forward a single witness older than 
Tertullian, who can testify to the practice of trine immer- 
sion. 

Our position, that there is no older witness for trine im- 
mersion than Tertullian, is also corroborated by the testi- 
mony of other eminent authorities. Dr. Philip Schaff, a 



40 SCHAFF ON TRINE IMMERSION. 

man of great learning, and an acknowledged authority on 
ecclesiastical history, says : " The old practice of a three- 
fold immersion, which is first mentioned by Tertullian, is a 
venerable usage, but cannot be traced to the Apostolic age." 
Robinson also speaks of trine immerson, but does not pro- 
duce any older witness than Tertullian. The same is true 
of Bingham, one of the most eminent and reliable authors 
on Christian Antiquities. He fails to find a witness prior 
to A. D. 200. Dr. William Smith, in his justly celebrated 
work, U A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities" also carries 
trine immersion back to Tertullian' s time, and cites him 
as a witness, and as the oldest witness, in favor of trine im- 
mersion. 

In a work entitled U A History of the Modes of Christian 
Baptism" by Eev. James Chrystal, A. M., we find addi- 
tional confirmation of our position. Mr. Chrystal searched 
the "Holy Scriptures, the Councils, Ecumenical and Pro- 
vincial, the Fathers, the Schoolmen, and the Rubrics of the 
whole Church East and West," to determine the modes of 
baptism practiced in all ages of the Christian era. In 
Chapter VI, he treats " of the mode practiced by the church 
during the early centuries, and how far any mode was en- 
joined by the church, and of the penalties of violating or 
changing the mode." The criteria by which he sought to 
determine these points were the Fathers, the Councils, ecu- 
menical and provincial and the baptismal offices of the 
church. For the first century he quotes Barnabas, Hernias, 
and St. Dionysius. The work of the latter does not belong to 
this century, as is every where conceded. Besides he quotes 
Justin Martyr, three in all, neither of which has a word to 
say in favor of trine immersion. He finds, therefore, no 
witness who can testify that trine immersion was practiced 
before the time of Tertullian. Could such a witness have 



SCHAFF ON TRINE IMMERSION. 41 

been found, Mr. Chrystal would unquestionably have pro- 
duced him. 

We consider the proposition, then, an established one, 
that prior to the year A. D. 200, or before the time of Tertul- 
lian, there is not a single witness who testifies to the practice 
of trine immersion. It is of special moment that this point 
should be definitely decided, and that the inquirer after 
truth and the right ways of the Lord should keep it clearly 
in his mind. The full force and significance of this fact 
can only be realized as the further progress of our investi- 
gation will bring out into bold relief several additional and 
cognate propositions. To these the following chapters will 
be devoted. 





Chapter VI. 

Testimony in favor of Immersion before A. D. 200. 

E have seen in the preceding chapter, that prior 
to A. D. 200 there is not a single witness to testify 
in favor of trine immersion. This fact would lose 
much of its decisive significance in either of two events. 

First If there were now no works extant of authors 
who wrote before Tertullian, except the writings of the 
Evangelists and Apostles. The language of the latter is 
not decisive to those who believe in trine immersion. In- 
deed, as in the case of Monulus (A. D. 250), or of Chrys- 
ostom (A. D. 407), the modern defenders of trine immer- 
sion think they find ample warrant for it in the Commis- 
sion (Matt, xxviii : 19, 20). Such, however, was not the 
case with Tertullian and others, as we shall see later. But 
it is not to be denied that our position would be sensibly 
weakened were no works now extant of authors who lived 
before Tertullian, except those of the Apostles and Evan- 
gelists. But, fortunately, this is not the case. 

Second. Or again, our position would be less impreg- 
nable if the works of authors were now extant who lived 
before Tertullian, but if they made no reference at all to 
baptism. Their silence respecting this ordinance could not 
be construed as testimony against trine immersion. The 

(42) 



THE APOSTOLIC FATHEKS. 43 

only ground for such an inference would be the fact that 
Tertullian, who was evidently familiar with these works, 
does not cite them in favor of trine immersion, though he 
seeks incidentally to defend it. 

But, fortunately, neither of these two hypotheses is cor- 
rect. Not only are the authentic and genuine remains of 
works older than Tertullian's now in our possession ; but 
the authors thereof speak of baptism, and speak of it in 
such a way as to indicate, to our mind, that trine immer- 
sion had then not yet been introduced. In some instances 
they could not readily avoid testifying in favor of trine im- 
mersion had it then been in vogue. But, as already fully 
demonstrated, they are all totally silent touching trine im- 
mersion, but speak at some length of immersion. 

Among the works that have come down to us from the 
first century of the Christian era are those of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers. It is of some importance at this point to 
fix definitely in our minds the correct meaning of the term 
Apostolic Fathers. We make a distinction between the 
Apostolic Fathers and the Fathers of the Church, fully aware, 
however, that temporal limits within which the Fathers 
are to be confined have long been points of grave discus- 
sion. For all practical purposes a clear definition is to be 
preferred, in a case like this, even to critical accuracy under 
the shadow of serious doubts. By the Fathers of the 
Church some mean the writers of the Christian church 
from the immediate post- Apostolic times down to the 
seventh century, and later. These ignore the distinction 
between Fathers of the Church and the Apostolic Fathers. 
This is a matter of some moment in a question like the 
one now before us. For without attempting to determine 
the degree of authority which may rightfully be attributed 
to the Fathers in this comprehensive sense, it must be 



44 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS — BARNABAS. 

clearly evident that upon questions of Apostolic faith and 
practice the testimony of the latter far outweighs that of the 
former. This is self-evident upon a mere statement of the 
temporal limit which divides, the two. The Apostolic 
Fathers are the writers of the church who were the im- 
mediate successors of the Apostles, while the Fathers of 
the Church are the leading writers of the church who 
were born after the close of the first century and down to 
A. D. 700, and later. Thus Dr. Hagenbach : l The name 
Patres Apostolici is given to the Fathers of the first cen- 
tury, who, according to tradition, were disciples of the 
Apostles" (Hist, of Doctrine, Vol. i, p. 64). In the Li- 
brary of Universal Knowledge we have the following defini- 
tion of the term Apostolic Fathers: "The name given to 
the immediate disciples and fellow-laborers of the Apos- 
tles ; and, in a more restricted sense, to those among them 
who had left writings behind them" (Vol. i, p. 568). 

Hence, as we have seen what some of the Fathers of the 
Church have written concerning trine immersion, we now 
propose to inquire what the Apostolic Fathers wrote on the 
same subject. Who are the Apostolic Fathers? We an- 
swer, Barnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and 
Polycarp. In the writings of at least three of these the 
subject of baptism is introduced, while in the case of Poly- 
carp we have the testimony of Irenaeus, his faithful and 
zealous disciple. We shall take up their testimony briefly 
in the order in which we have named them. 

Barnabas. — He was a Levite from Cyprus, who very 
early joined the church at Jerusalem, where he was known 
as Joses (Acts iv: 36). He consecrated his earthly posses- 
sions to the needs of the church (Acts iv : 37). He was af- 
terwards associated for a time with the Apostle Paul (Acts 
ix : 27). Eusebius says he was one of the seventy disciples. 



HERMAS ON BAPTISM. 45 

In what is known as " The General Epistle of Barnabas," 
lie speaks at some length of baptism. In the tenth and 
eleventh chapters he " spiritually allegorises" the commands 
of Moses on certain points, showing that baptism and the 
cross of Christ were foretold in figures under the law. He 
speaks definitely and specifically of immersion, but not a 
word of triple immersion. His words are as follows : "Con- 
sider how he has joined both the cross and the water to- 
gether. For this he saith : Blessed are they who put their 
trust in the cross, descend into the water, for they shall 
have their reward in due time ; then, saith he, I will give 
it them. * * And there was a river running on the 
right hand, and beautiful trees grew up by it ; and he that 
shall eat of them shall live forever. The signification of 
which is this : That we go down into the water full of sins 
and pollution, but come up again bringing forth fruit ; 
having in our hearts the fear and hope which is in Jesus, 
by the Spirit." Barnabas had the occasion and the spirit 
to enlarge on the threefold immersion if it had been prac- 
ticed in his time ; but he is significantly silent on that point. 
Hermas. — The next one of the Apostolic Fathers whom 
we propose to interrogate on this subject is Hermas. He 
was a member of the church at Rome at the time at which 
Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans (Rom. xvi : 14). He 
is the author of a work which has come down to us, enti- 
tled "The Shepherd of Hermas." The book is divided 
into three parts, under the respective heads of Visions, 
Commands, and Similitudes. It was in such high re- 
pute in the early history of the church that it was quoted 
by some under the very name of Scripture, as by Irenaeus ; 
or as divinely inspired, as by Origen. Even where it was 
not accepted as canonical it was publicly read in the 
churches, and the Fathers appointed it to be read for di- 



46 HERMAS ON BAPTISM. 

rection and confirmation in faith and piety. Both in the 
Commands and in the Similitudes Hernias speaks of 
baptism — of immersion — but in neither does he make the 
remotest reference to a triple immersion. In the Com- 
mands he says : "And I said unto him, 'I have even now 
heard from certain teachers that there is no other repent- 
ance besides that of baptism ; when we go down into the 
water and receive the forgiveness of our sins" {Com- 
mands iv: 3, Archbishop Wake's Trans.). In the Simili- 
tudes he says: " Before a man receives the name of the 
Son of God, he is ordained unto death ; but when he re- 
ceives that seal, he is freed from death, and assigned unto 
life. Now that seal is the water of baptism, into which 
men go down under the obligation unto death, but come 
up appointed unto life" {Similitude ix: 16, Archbishop 
Wake's Trans.). Here, then, is not a word about trine im- 
mersion, nor anywhere else where reference is made to 
baptism. This fact is well known to the advocates of trine 
immersion, as is evident from the fact that they never 
quote Hermas. Mr. Chrystal in his excellent History of 
the Modes of Baptism concedes that Hermas does not testify 
to trine immersion. In considering objections to the Apos- 
tolic practice of trine immersion he has the following : 

" Obj. 2. But the passages quoted from Barnabas, 
Hermas and Justin Martyr state only the fact of being im- 
mersed or baptized, but do not specify further." 

In his answer to this objection he fully acknowledges 
its correctness as a matter of fact, though he controverts 
the inference drawn therefrom, that "we should most nat- 
urally understand these testimonies of single" immersion. 
According to Hermas, even the Old Testament saints and 
patriarchs had to be baptized by the Apostles in hades before 
they could enjoy the blessings of the kingdom. But it is 



HEEMAS AND IGNATIUS. 47 

strange, indeed, that lie should deem it important to state 
this fact, of no practical moment except to enforce the es- 
sentiality of baptism ; and yet neglect to teach them the 
threefold immersion upon which the validity of baptism is 
supposed to depend. We must hence ask the right to dis- 
sent from Mr. Chrystal's conclusion on this point, and ac- 
cept Hernias as a witness against trine immersion. 

Clement of Eome. — The next in the order in which 
we have named the Apostolic Fathers is Clemens Romanus, 
mentioned in Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, iv : 3. But, 
as there is no clearly defined reference in his Epistles now 
extant to the subject of baptism, we need not enlarge upon 
his character and history. 

Ignatius. — It is alleged that Ignatius was Bishop of 
Antioch as early as A. D. 69. He is recognized as a dis- 
ciple of the Apostle John. He bore the surname of Theo- 
phoros ; that is, one who carries God (Christ) in his heart. 
A tradition says he was the little child whom Jesus set in 
the midst of his Disciples, and accordingly Jerome interprets 
his surname to mean "one who was carried by Grod " 
(Christ). During the persecution under Trajan, on account 
of his steadfast confession of Christ, Ignatius was carried 
to Rome, where, in A. D. 107 (or according to some, A. D. 
115 or 116), he was thrown to the lions in the Colosseum 
for the delectation of the people. We have seven Epistles 
bearing his name, the genuineness of which is generally 
conceded. They are said to have been composed on his 
way to a martyr's death, and are full of tender feeling. In 
at least three of these Epistles Ignatius refers to baptism, in 
the one even speaking of it as the " one baptism ; " yet he 
does not hint at a threefold immersion. But if triple bap- 
tism was then practiced ; and if Christ was thus baptized, 
it is difficult to account for this silence, especially as Igna- 



48 IGNATIUS AND POLYCARP. 

tins mentions Christ's baptism in his Epistle to the Smyr- 
nseans. 

Polycarp. — The last-named of the Apostolic Fathers 
is Polycarp. He was Bishop of Smyrna when Ignatius 
sent his Epistle to that church, as well as one to Polycarp 
himself, which is addressed "to Polycarp, Bishop of the 
Church which is at Smyrna." He was one of the most 
illustrious of the early Christian martyrs. His martyrdom 
occurred under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Irenseus 
states that Polycarp was taught the doctrines of Christianity 
by the Apostles, particularly by John, with whom he had 
familiar intercourse. Only one of his Epistles is pre- 
served, addressed to the Philippians, and in it there is no 
reference to baptism. But, for two reasons, we accept him 
as a silent witness against trine immersion. 

First As Bishop of the church at Smyrna his doctrine 
touching baptism would agree with that of the Epistle of 
Ignatius addressed to said church. This Epistle speaks 
of baptism, but fails to say a word in favor of a triple bap- 
tism. Ignatius also addressed an Epistle to Polycarp while 
the latter was Bishop of Smyrna, in which he speaks of 
baptism without a word of a threefold immersion. This 
repeated mention of baptism without any allusion to three 
immersions indicates an efficient cause for the silence. 

Second. The silence of Irengeus on trine immersion (of 
which we shall have more to say presently) is another in- 
dication that Polycarp did not teach and practice it. Ire- 
naeus was the pupil of Polycarp, and a faithful disciple. 
He speaks admiringly of his teacher, saying, "I can tell 
also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accus- 
tomed to sit and discourse; and also his entrance, his 
walks, the complexion of his life, and the form of his body, 
and his conversations with his people, and his familiar in- 



IGNATIUS AND POLYCARP. 49 

tercourse with John, as lie was accustomed to tell, and also 
his familiarity wifcli those that had seen the Lord. Also 
concerning his miracles, his doctrines ; all these were told 
by Poly carp in consistency with the Holy Scriptures." 
And yet Irenaeus, in his extant writings, fails to testify to 
the practice of a threefold baptism, though, as we shall 
see, he speaks of baptism in such connections as to make 
a reference to trine immersion, if it had been practiced, in 
every way natural and to be expected. For these reasons 
we count Polycarp with the other Apostolic Fathers as 
silent on trine immersion. The silence of all these Fathers 
touching trine immersion is certainly quite singular, ex- 
cept upon the supposition that it was not practiced until a 
later period. This we believe to be the truth. 







Chapter VII. 

From the Apostolic Fathers to Tertullian, 

E have seen with what unanimity the Apostolic 
Fathers testify to the practice of immersion in 
their time, and also the silence which they inva- 
riably maintain touching trine immersion. These Fathers 
belong to the first century of the Christian church. There 
yet remains a period of nearly one hundred years to the 
time of Tertullian, when trine immersion finds the first 
historic mention. It will therefore prove of interest and 
moment to examine the testimony of the immediate dis- 
ciples and companions of the Apostolic Fathers in order 
to secure their testimony on the question at issue. We 
have stated in general terms that not one of them testifies 
in favor of trine immersion, a fact which is evident from 
the failure on the part of the friends of trine immersion to 
produce testimony to that effect from their writings, as 
well as from the concurrent statements of church historians 
and paleographers. It may, however, serve to intensify 
the importance of this statement to enumerate briefly the 
Fathers who lived and wrote between A. D. 100 and the 
time when Tertullian probably wrote his works. Of these 

(50) 



THE SECOND CENTURY AND TRINE IMMERSION. 51 

there are at least six. fragments of whose writings have 
come down to the present time. Not one of them speaks 
of trine immersion. 

The first of these Fathers is Papias. He was Bishop of 
Hierapolis, in Phrygia, in the first half of the second cen- 
tury. By some he is counted as one of the Apostolic 
Fathers, and according to Guericke "not without right." 
Irenaeus represents him as a pupil of the Apostle John, 
although he does not himself advance such a claim. He 
was, however, an associate of Polycarp, and Bishop in the 
same province of proconsular Asia. There is nothing in 
the fragments of his writings on trine immersion. 

The testimony of Justin Martyr is of great importance 
in this connection. He was born about A. D. 89. He 
was a native of Sychem, in Samaria. Born a heathen, he 
was converted to Christianity when about thirty-five years 
of age. He was a Christian philosopher, not a bishop. He 
wrote several important works, which have escaped the 
ravages of time. He is the recognized link between the 
Apostolic Fathers and the more distinct periods of the 
early church. In his Apology I, chap. 61, he contrasts re- 
generation by the baptismal water with natural birth. He 
says : " But we will also describe the manner in which we 
consecrate ourselves to God, having been made new by 
Christ, that we may not seem, by omitting this, to deal 
dishonestly in our exposition. As many as are convinced 
and believe those things that are taught and said by us to 
be true, and as a promise that they are able to live thus, 
are taught to pray and to ask of God with fasting the for- 
giveness of their former sins, we ourselves praying and 
fasting with them. Thereupon they are led by us where 
there is water, and are regenerated by the same method of 
regeneration with which we also ourselves were regenera- 



52 PAPIAS — JUSTIN MAKTYR. 

ted; for in the name of God, the Father of all and Lord, 
and of oar Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost-, 
they then receive the bath in water." Farther on he says : 
" The name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, 
is pronounced over him who is willing to be born again, 
and hath repented of his sins ; he who leads him to be 
washed [or bathed] in the laver of baptism saying this only 
over him." In his Dialogue with Tryphon, the Jew, the con- 
trast between baptism and Jewish lustrations is urged. Yet 
in all this discussion of baptism in these two works there 
is not once an intimation of a threefold immersion. 

Tatian was a disciple of Justin Martyr. He is also the 
author of a work called Apology, written before the death 
of Justin. But no trace appears in this work of either the 
doctrine or practice of trine immersion. The same may be 
said of Athenagoras, the Athenian. 

Another of the intermediate Fathers, whose writings have 
been at least in part preserved, is Theophilus, bishop of An- 
tioch. Fie speaks of baptism in a work against Autolycus, 
entitled " Concerning the Faith of the Christians. 11 He applies 
the blessing God pronounced on the fifth day of the work 
of creation upon the creatures which the waters brought 
forth to the water used in baptism {Ad. Ant. II, 16). But 
while he dwells particularly on this point, he does not, in 
any manner, as much as intimate a triple immersion. 

The last of the intermediate Fathers before Tertullian, 
whose writings have been preserved, is Irenaeus, to whom 
we referred above. He was a disciple of Polycarp and 
bishop of Lyons. He is pronounced " a clear-headed, con- 
siderate, philosophical theologian." His principal work 
was written against the Gnostics, and is extant. In this he 
speaks of baptism as follows : "As dough cannot be made 
of dry flour without the addition of some fluid, so we, the 



TATIAN — THEOPHILUS — IEENJEUS. 53 

many, cannot be united in one body in Christ without the 
cement of water which comes down from heaven ; and as 
the earth is quickened and rendered fruitful by dew and rain, 
so Christianity by the heavenly water," &c. In another 
work {Against Heresies) he says: " Our bodies through 
this bath [lavacrurri] have received that which leads to an 
incorruptible unity." In another fragment he says con- 
cerning Naaman : " He dipped in Jordan seven times. Not 
in vain in old time was Naaman, being a leper, baptized 
and cleansed, but for our information, who, being lepers 
in our sins, are cleansed by the holy water and invocation 
of the Lord from our old transgressions, as new-born chil- 
dren spiritually regenerated. " It would have been in point 
for Irenseus to have said that in baptism Christians are 
dipped three times, had that been the practice. However, 
he makes no mention of a threefold immersion, and^thus 
by his silence unites with the other Fathers of that period, 
and with the Apostolic Fathers, in virtually testifying 
against it. This seems the more natural conclusion when 
we remember how common it was to speak of "descending 
three times into the water," and to use similar expressions, 
in the fourth century. Also when the fact is emphasized 
that these earlier writers, like the later ones, speak of " one 
baptism," as in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 
chap. IV, but never deem it necessary to add, " in three 
immersions," as was done by Monulus, Chrysostom and 
others. 

If now we should open the New Testament, after this 
silence of two centuries concerning trine immersion, could 
we expect to hear anything there with reference to it ? The 
New Testament is our ultimate authority, and it has been 
searched in vain for any testimony in favor of this practice 
of antiquity. And yet there are instances in which a state- 



54 THE NEW TESTAMENT AND TRINE IMMERSION. 

ment of a threefold baptism would have been quite natural, 
not to say necessary, in order to avoid misunderstanding. 
Yet nearly every case in which baptism is in anywise 
mentioned a single immersion is implied ; and those which 
do not, also do not necessarily imply three immersions. If 
we put the word immerse in its various forms in place of 
baptize this fact will become more apparent. We shall find 
no such peculiar expression as " one baptism in three im- 
mersions." The sacred historian says of Jesus that when 
he was immersed he went up out of the water. Immersed 
how often? One time. He himself said: " He that be- 
lieveth and is immersed shall be saved." In this instance 
especially would we look for the number of times a man 
must be immersed, since, according to later testimony, three 
immersions are necessary to the validity of Christian bap- 
tism. Paul says: " There is one body *.*•>** one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism" [immersion]. If there is 
more than one immersion this was one of the places in 
which the fact should not have been concealed. Indeed, 
we need not hesitate to say that the New Testament not 
only knows nothing about trine immersion, but that it is 
so written that from its pages alone every unbiased reader 
would be led to conclude that single immersion is the bap- 
tism therein taught. There is nothing in all its pages to 
the contrary, but many things which it is difficult to ac- 
count for upon any other supposition than that single im- 
mersion is of Divine origin. 

As we go back to the period before the Commission this 
supposition is strengthened. The baptism of John was not 
a threefold immersion. We are not aware that it has ever 
been so claimed. Those who believe in the existence of 
Proselyte baptism have never contended for trine immer- 
sion among the Jews. Then there would have been no 



JOmTS BAPTISM — PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 55 

propriety in a formula such as the Fathers used in baptiz- 
ing converts, and which many claim requires a triple im- 
mersion. Then, in place of the frequentative baptizo, ac- 
cording to some modern writers, we should find the He- 
brew non-frequentative tahval, or its Aramaic equivalent. 
But if among the Jews there was no threefold immersion 
practiced (though we do not concede that Proselyte bap- 
tism was practiced before John's time), and if the baptism 
of John the Baptist was by a single immersion, we have 
good reason to expect some definite mention of a change 
to three immersions. But there is no such mention in the 
New Testament. 

Besides, it is generally conceded that during the time of 
the Apostles, as well as in the earliest post- Apostolic times, 
baptism was administered in the name of Jesus. Neander, 
the prince of modern ecclesiastical historians, says that the 
formula of baptism which is regarded as the older is the 
" shorter one which refers only to Christ, to which there is 
allusion in the New Testament." Dr. Hare also says in 
his Church History: "Baptism as an initiatory rite was 
performed simply in the name of Jesus " {Apostolic Church), 
Robinson, in His History of Baptism, says: " There is no 
mention of baptism in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost in immediately post- Apostolic 
times." Dr. William Smith states the same fact in his 
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. This testimony, of a 
negative character, certainly becomes very strong and sig- 
nificant in view of the fact that Peter enjoined baptism " in 
the name of Jesus Christ " (Acts ii : 38) ; that when Philip 
preached in Samaria, to which place Peter and John were 
sent upon hearing " that Samaria had received the word of 
God," those who believed "were baptized in the name of 
the Lord Jesus " (Acts viii: 5-16) ; and that under the in- 



56 HISTOEICAL KEVIEW. 

structions of Paul those who had been baptized "unto 
John's baptism" were "baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus" (Acts xix: 3-5). 

Now, a historical retrospect reveals the following pecu- 
liar facts : 

1. In the latter part of the fourth century nearly every 
author who refers to baptism speaks of the triple immer- 
sion. 

2. At the close of the third century the witnesses are 
less numerous, though the threefold immersion was evi- 
dently widely practiced. 

3. At the opening of the third century there are but 
two witnesses who testify to the practice of trine immersion. 

4. In the second century there are various works extant 
which speak in greater or less detail of baptism, but not 
one author mentions trine immersion. 

5. The Apostolic Fathers, the immediate disciples of the 
Apostles, though the majority of them speak of immer- 
sion, not one of them mentions trine immersion. 

6. The inspired historian mentions Peter, Philip and 
Paul as baptizing in the name of Jesus only, whereas the 
threefold immersion is never in the name of Jesus alone 
until after the fourth century. 

7. That there is no claim advanced in favor of trine im- 
mersion before the crucifixion of Christ, neither in Christ's 
baptism, that of John, nor in the Proselyte baptism of the 
Jews, if there was such baptism. 

8. That there is no mention or intimation of a change 
from single to trine immersion in the Scriptures, but ample 
reasons in favor of a uniform practice from John the Bap- 
tist to John the Apostle. This significant array of adverse 
facts should be sufficient to produce the most serious doubt 
touching the divine origin of trine immersion. 




Chapter VIII. 

Trine Immersion based on Tradition. 

E have in the previous chapter given ample proof 
of the total want of documentary evidence, prior 
to the time of Tertullian, in favor of trine immer- 
sion. It might still not be perfectly safe to conclude that 
this mode of baptism rests exclusively upon tradition. 
The documentary evidence might be lost. We hence pro- 
pose to show further that the weight of testimony, even in 
the times when trine immersion was so widely practiced, 
is in favor of its traditionary origin. 

A clear and distinct understanding of terms is one of the 
first requisites in all discussions. We should, therefore, 
first of all know what is meant by the word tradition ; and 
especially that we clearly perceive the import of the term 
Apostolic tradition. The Greek verb paradidonai and the 
Latin verb tradere are synonymous. Their general mean- 
ing is to deliver from one to another, to transmit ; or, as 
Dr. Hinsdale has defined the conjugate nouns, "the act of 
giving up, handing down, transmitting " {Tradition, p. 10). 
The instrument of transmission is oral language. Hence 
Webster's definition of tradition: "The unwritten or oral 
delivery of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites, and customs 

(57) 



58 TRADITION DEFINED. 

from father to son, or from ancestors to posterity; the 
transmission of any opinions or practices from forefathers 
to descendants by oral communication, without written 
memorials." 

Apostolic tradition is commonly regarded as the oral de- 
liverances of the Apostles contained in the writings of the 
Fathers. But what is peculiar about the tradition concern- 
ing trine immersion, the baptism of infants, etc., is that the 
Apostolic Fathers have no record of any such tradition. 
Hence, if we were to adhere to the first principle laid down 
by the Eeformers as a body, even in a slightly modified 
sense, we could have no ground upon which to base trine 
immersion. They held that the word of God alone, by 
which they meant the written word or the Scriptures, could 
safely be accepted as a rule of faith. If the Fathers could 
be received at all, it is only in the light of witnesses, and 
fallible witnesses, to the interpretation of the Scriptures. 
We regard this as a sound principle. But judged by it, 
trine immersion must fall, since the Apostolic Fathers do 
not even appear as witnesses in favor of the interpretation 
of Scripture to sustain trine immersion. 

That we are not unsupported in the positive affirmation 
which we have made, that trine immersion rests wholly on 
tradition, will appear evident from quotations made from 
several eminent authors. Dr. Schaff, a man of great learn- 
ing and an acknowledged authority on ecclesiastical history, 
says: " The old practice of a threefold immersion, which is 
first mentioned by Tertullian, is a venerable usage, but cannot 
be traced to the Apostolic age." Eobinson says : " Trine 
immersion is of uncertain origin." Bingham, one of our 
best authorities on Christian antiquities, says: "Some 
[among ancient authors] derive it from Apostolic tradi- 
tion, others from the first institution of baptism by our 



TESTIMONY FOR TRADITION — JEROME — BASIL. 59 

Savior, while others esteem it only an indifferent circum- 
stance or ceremony, that may be used or omitted without 
any detriment to the sacrament itself , or breach of Divine 
appointment." Mr. Chrystal, in his History of the Modes 
of Baptism, quotes some of the Fathers of the Church 
whose testimony, he states, indicates " that the number of 
immersions had come down by tradition." But he is 
equally positive that they do "not mean also that immer- 
sion itself did." 

But these modern authors must derive their knowledge 
on this subject from works which have come down to us 
from the Fathers. We can therefore accept their testimony 
only when sustained by the proper documents, and as a 
confirmation of our interpretation of the terms of these 
documents. What we demand of others we cannot be 
slow to furnish ourselves. We hence produce the neces- 
sary testimony to show that anciently trine immersion was 
based (1) upon constructions of the text of Scripture ; and 
(2) upon tradition. 

Theodoret speaks of " the law of holy baptism which had 
been handed down from the beginning from the Lord, and 
from the Apostles." Sozomen to the same effect, but in 
different and plainer terms, speaks of corrupting " the tra- 
dition that has been handed down from the Apostles." It 
will be noticed that both these authors, according to the 
translator, employ the very words by which Dr. Hinsdale 
defines tradition — u handing down. 11 

Jerome (died A. D. 420), a cotemporary of Chrysostom, 
Basil and others quoted in previous chapters, confirms the 
testimony of Sozomen. He rendered immense service to 
biblical criticism and exegesis ; but he does not find any 
basis for trine immersion in the word, nor in the writings 
of the Apostolic Fathers. His testimony is as follows : 



60 TRINE IMMERSION DERIVED FROM TRADITION. 

" Many other things which are observed by tradition in the 
churches have acquired the authority of written law, as, for 
instance, to immerse the head thrice in the laver" {Adv. 
Lucif, chap. IV). 

Basil (died A. D. 379) furnishes strong testimony for 
our position. With others of the Fathers of the Church 
he speaks of immersion as having been established as an 
ordinance by the Lord, but that trine immersion was de- 
rived through tradition. Thus he says : u There is but one 
death for the world and one resurrection from the dead, of 
both which baptism [or immersion, as Chrystal renders it, 
an advocate of trine immersion] is a type. Therefore has 
the Lord, the dispenser of life, established the rite of bap- 
tism [immersion — Chrystal] for us, that it might afford a 
figure of death and life." But when he refers to the three- 
fold baptism, or triple immersion, he states that it was de- 
rived through tradition (De Spirit. Sanct, c. XXVII). 
, We have other witnesses to the same effect, but we do 
not deem it necessary to cite them all. There is one more, 
however, whose testimony it is needful to examine, as great 
reliance is placed upon what he says by those who advo- 
cate and practice trine immersion. We refer to Tertullian, 
who first mentions this mode of baptism. Our opponents 
contend that Tertullian does not say that in being " im- 
mersed three times [we] fulfill somewhat more than our 
Lord has declared in the Gospel." Mr. Chrystal contends 
" that Tertullian believed that all the baptisms of the New 
Testament performed after the words of the Commission 
were uttered, were performed by trine immersion," and 
" that he believed that Christ enjoined this mode" (Hist. 
Modes of Bap., p. 62). On the contrary, we have been led 
to believe that Tertullian intimates that it is of human 
origin in his belief when he says : " Then we are three 



TERTULLIAN AND TRINE IMMERSION. 61 

times immersed, answering [or fulfilling] somewhat more 
than the Lord prescribed in the Gospel." This is Dr. Co- 
nant's translation, who is fully able to determine the mean- 
ing of Tertullian's words. And as quoted by Dr. Wall, 
Tertullian distinctly admits that the practice of trine im- 
mersion is without scriptural authority. He argues in 
favor of it precisely upon the same ground that he argues 
for other practices not of Apostolic origin ; that is, unin- 
spired tradition. An examination of his testimony will, 
we think, make this clear. The eleventh volume of the 
Ante-Nicene Library contains the first volume of the 
writings of Tertullian. The thirteenth division of this 
volume gives us the treatise entitled De Corona, important 
in its bearings both upon morals and doctrine. The very 
object of this treatise is to show that it is lawful to do things 
religiously which are not commanded in the Scriptures. 
Thus in the first paragraph he says : " But now, as they 
put forth also the objection : ' But where are we forbidden 
to be crowned?' I shall take this point up as more suit- 
able to be treated of here, being the essence in fact of the 
present contention" {Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. XI, p. 334). 
In the second paragraph he says : " Consider, then, whence 
the custom about which we are now chiefly inquiring got 
its authority." He admits that his opponents demand 
scriptural authority for the custom he was advocating, 
and he retorts : " Indeed, in urgently demanding the war- 
rant of Scripture in a different side from their own [of their 
opponents] men prejudge that the support of Scripture 
ought no less to appear on their part " (Ibid, p. 335). But 
in these mutual demands for Scripture authority no pro- 
gress can be made toward a solution. There must be a 
different principle of adjustment laid down, Tertullian 
would say. Hence in the third paragraph he says : "And 



62 TERTULLIAN AND TRINE IMMERSION. 

how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this 
line [of each demanding Scripture of the other], when we 
have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made 
for us the state [of the question]. If no passage of Scrip- 
ture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which 'without doubt 
flowed from tradition, has confirmed if (Ibid, p. 336). 
But his opponents were not yet satisfied, for he proceeds : 
"Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say 7 
must be demanded " (Ibid, p. 336). This he controverts. 
He declares that their practice in other respects shows that 
tradition, without written authority, is sufficient : " Cer- 
tainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no 
case of other practices which, without any written instru- 
ment, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone ,7 (Ibid, 
p. 336). In other words, if you deny us the right to ob- 
serve certain practices upon tradition alone, then you must 
deny the right to all others. Then he brings forward cer- 
tain matters based upon tradition, but which his opponents 
observed, saying : " To deal with this matter briefly, I shall 
begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the 
water, but a little before, in the presence of the congrega- 
tion and under the hand of the president, we solemnly pro- 
fess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. 
Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat 
ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the gospel. 
Then, when we are taken up [as new-born children], we 
taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that 
day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We 
take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand 
of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, 
and enjoined to be taken by all [alike]. As often as the 
anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead 



TERTULLIAN AND TRINE IMMERSION. 63 

as birthday honors. We count fasting, or kneeling in wor- 
ship on the Lord's day, unlawful" (Ibid, p. 336). The 
following paragraph, referring to these practices, opens 
thus : " If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon 
haying positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. 
Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of 
them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their ob- 
server" (Ibid, p. 337). 

Trine immersion is introduced only in this connection, 
where Tertullian is speaking of practices for which "you 
will find no Scripture injunction." He also wrote a treatise 
(De Baplismo) on baptism, but he nowhere therein refers to 
the triple immersion. We have here a definite and positive 
reason for holding that Tertullian, the first to mention trine 
immersion, classes it among those practices for which if 
" you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you 
will find none." Hence, also, he further says : " These in- 
stances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you 
can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition when 
it has been established by custom " (Ibid, p. 337). 

Others refer to the Commission in confirmation of the 
practice of trine immersion as of divine origin. This is the 
case with Monulus, A. D. 256, and Chrysostom, A. D. 400. 
But this is in no way reliable, and serves more as evidence 
that there was no early documentary proof of the practice. 

Concerning tradition as a valid ground for the practice 
of any rite, little need be said to the student of ancient 
ecclesiastical history. It is worthless for the purpose of es- 
tablishing the Apostolic origin of any doctrine or practice. 
Indeed, it is rather good evidence to the contrary. The 
learned and acute Neander saw this, and hesitated not to 
avow it. Speaking of infant baptism he says : " We have 
all reason for not deriving infant baptism from Apostolic 



64 TRADITION, cfec, AGAINST TRINE IMMERSION. 

institution ; and the recognition of which followed some- 
what later, as an Apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this 
hypothesis." 

Besides, no reliance is to be placed upon the claims of a 
practice based upon even so-called Apostolic tradition. 
That many customs and practices in the second, third and 
fourth centuries laid claim to the authority of the Apostles 
and Apostolic tradition, without a particle of evidence, is 
well known. Tradition, in these respects, has proved itself 
proverbially unreliable. Then, it is well-known that the 
term Apostle, as used by the Fathers of the Church, was 
not as definitely restricted as it now is. Thus Canon Farrar 
speaks of the " wider sense of the word Apostle" as used in 
the writings of the early church {Early Days of Christianity, 
p. 46). Clemens Alexandrinus (died A. D. 220) calls 
Clement of Eome an Apostle, and Jerome says he was an 
Apostolical man. Accordingly, also, many things were 
reputed as scriptural which are not found in the accepted 
canon of the New Testament. Almost the entire Apocry- 
pha was accepted as Scripture by some writers. Irenseus 
expressly quotes the Shepherd of Hernias under the very 
name of Scripture. 

It is, hence, sufficient reason for the rejection of a prac- 
tice when we can find no better authority for it than can 
be produced in favor of trine immersion. It has been con- 
clusively established that it rests wholly on tradition, and 
that even no record of it as a tradition can be found before 
the time of Tertullian. This is a notable fact. The insti- 
tution of baptism is well authenticated. It rests directly 
upon the divine command, and is confirmed by an unbroken 
practice in the Apostolic and post- Apostolic periods. That 
baptism and immersion are synonymous is also abundantly 
verified, and that this was the practice of the Apostles and 



TKADITION, Ac, AGAINST TEINE IMMEBSION. 65 

Fathers is not subject to reasonable doubt. Why, then, 
should the threefold immersion fail to be recorded in a 
solitary instance before the close of the second century, if 
baptism was thus administered ? And why should we then 
meet it in an apologetic attitude, begging for quarters be- 
cause other practices, without divine or Apostolic warrant, 
were observed? Why should we then for the first time 
find even a record of the tradition upon whose authority 
alone it survived ? Were there the least warrant for it in 
the word of God we should joyfully accept it, for that word 
is the supreme law of the Christian. But as there is no 
authority for it in God's book we are bound to reject it as 
of human origin. 




Chaptee IX. 

The Innovations based on Tradition. 

AMILIAR mainly with ecclesiastical history of the 
|| 4[ present time, the accuracy with which dates and 
events are recorded and preserved, and the tenacity 
with which established usages are maintained, the change 
from single to trine immersion as early as A. D. 220 seems 
to many almost incredible. How could such an innova- 
tion become established ? That this is possible, not to say 
natural, seems evident upon a somewhat careful investiga- 
tion. This is so generally conceded, in the abstract, that 
no cautious critic of the present age would feel safe to trust 
to tradition in the absence of Scripture testimony. Noth- 
ing is clearer to men thoroughly conversant with ancient 
ecclesiastical history than that the existence of a practice, or 
the belief of a doctrine, one, two or three centuries after the 
days of the Apostles, is no proof whatever that it was insti- 
tuted by Christ or taught and practiced by the Apostles. The 
reason for this principle must be evident. Great changes 
in doctrine, practice and polity took place within almost 
hearing distance of the Apostles. To this effect it is not 
difficult to cite a large number of authorities. Dr. Miller, 
whose learning and integrity as a church historian cannot 

{66) 



EARLY CORRUPTIONS AND INNOVATIONS. 67 

be called in question, says : " Before the close of the second 
century the scene began to change, and before the com- 
mencement of the fourth, a deplorable corruption of doc- 
trines, discipline and morals had crept into the church 
and disfigured the body of Christ." Hegesippus, the earliest 
of the post- Apostolic Christian church historians, born at 
the beginning of the second century and died about A. D. 
180, declares that the " virgin purity of the church was 
confined to the Apostles." Irenaeus even speaks of Simon 
Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, as the " author of 
all heresies." He was himself the founder of a sect, though 
recognized in the New Testament rather as a man of im- 
moral character, but not as a, heretic (Acts viii). President 
Hinsdale, of Hiram College, Ohio, speaking of Human 
Tradition, says : " Many innovations in the doctrine and 
polity of the church are traceable to the second and third 
centuries " (JEccl Tradition, p. 28). Again, he says : u Doc- 
trines and rites unknown to the Apostles, but invented by 
men, in continually increasing numbers, were receiving 
recognition in the church " (Ibid, p. 47). 

These innovations and errors of doctrine were almost in- 
variably based on tradition, though sometimes they claimed 
the direct and written authority of the Apostles. The cir- 
cumstances were all favorable for the introduction of inno- 
vations in practice and heresies in doctrine. Their very 
multiplicity, and variety, and want of harmony with di- 
vinely delivered doctrines and rites, increase the prob- 
ability of a departure in the case of baptism from the ex- 
treme simplicity of the first institution. And then, too, it 
is not to be overlooked that this threefold immersion into 
" the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit," has the appearance of an amendation. Under the 
most famous of all canons of criticism, "to choose the 



68 BAPTISM REJECTED. 

harder reading" where there are various readings, this 
practically amended reading of the Commission becomes 
increasingly suspicious. It looks like an after- thought, to 
conform the practice to a supposed necessity of the sacred 
text. 

But let us instance some of the innovations which came 
into the church about the time, or before the time, that we 
find trine immersion first mentioned. By comparison we 
shall be able readily to see that there is nothing peculiar 
in the fact that trine immersion should be introduced into 
the church without a shadow of Divine or Apostolic au- 
thority. We have seen that Tertullian is the first to men- 
tion trine immersion* He died A. D. 220, and his works 
were principally written in the closing decade of his life. 
According to his testimony there were those in his day 
who utterly rejected baptism. In his treatise De Baptismo, 
chapter I, he says : "The consequence is, that a viper of 
the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has 
carried away a great number with her most venomous doc- 
trine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism " (Ante- 
Nicene Library, Vol. XI, p. 231). Again he testifies that 
these rejecters of baptism argued in favor of their position 
from the fact that Christ did not baptize (Ibid, p. 244) ; 
and " that the Apostles were not bapatized" (Ibid, p. 245), 
adding the following : " Here, then, those miscreants pro- 
voke questions. And so they say : ' Baptism is not ne- 
cessary for them to whom faith is sufficient ; for withal, 
Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of 
faith ' " (Ibid, p. 247). Again he says : " But they roll back 
[upon us an objection] from [that] Apostle [Paul] himself, 
in that he said : 'For Christ sent me not to baptize' ; as if 
by this argument baptism were done away " (Ibid, 248). 



INFAXT BAPTISM. 69 

These believed, not simply upon tradition, but upon Apos- 
tolic authority, that ritual baptism was no longer required. 
But this erroneous doctrine, so sharply repudiated by 
Tertullian, was not as new as one might suppose from his 
writings. It had just been introduced in Africa, but in 
other parts it bad been preached at an earlier date. Thus 
Irenasus, who died about twenty years before Tertullian, 
speaking of some of the heretical Valentinian Gnostics says : 
" Some of them say that it is needless to bring the person 
to the water at all" {Studies on the Baptismal Question, p. 
267). That is, they did not regard it needful to baptize 
their converts. From the testimony of the same author 
we learn that others of the Gnostics had a substitute for 
baptism in the form of an unguent made of " a mixture of 
oil and water" (Ibid, p. 267). In this way innovations 
were introduced in one part of the church, in some in- 
stances, long before they were received elsewhere. And 
this does not appear singular when the facts are fully known 
touching the formation of the Canon of the New Testament 
Scriptures. The facilities for detecting and exposing errors 
and innovations which we now possess did not then exist 
It was not uncommon for some of these parties in the 
church to reject large portions of the present New Testa- 
ment, and even to go so far as to repudiate the Apostle 
Paul, as the Elcesaites and Ebionites did; or to stigmatize 
him as a heretic, as others did. Indeed, it was not a deter- 
mined question as to what the Canon of the New Testa- 
ment Scriptures really is until after the close of the third 
century. Some portions of the church had nothing of our 
present New Testament except a " corrupted recension of 
the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew." Practices and doctrines 
hence became current in some localities whence they were 
carried to others as Apostolic and accepted as such. 



70 INFANT BAPTISM. 

One of the most serious departures from scriptural prac- 
tices found in the patristic period is that of infant baptism. 
Trine immersion was a harmless innovation and an indif- 
ferent modification of an established rite compared with an 
entire and essential change of the subjects of the rite. And 
yet this change was partly effected at quite as early a date 
as the first recorded testimony for triple immersion. And 
a persistent effort was made even then to base it upon 
Apostolic teaching and practice. Texts of Scripture were 
quoted showing that infant baptism was an Apostolic usage ; 
and that, too, by the same authors who testify in favor of 
trine immersion, but who base it most generally upon tra- 
dition. Tertullian is said to have first written about infant 
baptism. So Yenema testifies. He says : " Nothing can be 
affirmed with certainty concerning the custom of the church 
before Tertullian, seeing there is not anywhere, in more 
ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of in- 
fant baptism." Pengilly positively states that the passage 
to which Venema alludes, contains " the first mention of 
infant baptism " {Guide to Baptism, p. 65). The mention 
of infant baptism by Tertullian occurs in his work entitled 
De Baptismo, which is supposed to have been written A. 
D. 204. We concede that this, so far as terms are con- 
cerned, is correct ; but Venema's cautious statement : " Noth- 
ing can be affirmed with certainty " — is better. For it is in 
dispute whether Irenaeus, who wrote a little earlier than 
Tertullian, mentions infant baptism. Among the terms 
used in the primitive church to designate baptism, in ad- 
dition to baptizein and derived words, were laver, font, re- 
generation, seal, illumination, etc. It is hence not uncom- 
mon for patristic writers to speak of those who were bap- 
tized as having been regenerated — born again. Tertullian 
does this frequently, as well as other writers of his time 



INFANT BAPTISM. 71 

(Trench's Synonyms of N. T. ; Tertullian de Baptismo, et 
al.). Irenseus in his book against Heresies (lib. Ill, cap. 39 
al. 22,) says that our "Lord came (into the world) in order 
that through himself he might save all men, infants, and 
little ones, and children, and youths, and elders, even all 
who through him are regenerated (born again) unto Grod." 
Dr. William Smith says: "No unprejudiced interpreter 
acquainted with the forms of speech habitually employed 
by Irenaeus himself, and by the early Fathers generally, 
will doubt that when Irenaeus thus speaks of infants and 
little ones, as well as others of more mature age, being 
1 born again unto Grod,' he refers to the fact of their being 
baptized" (Diet. Chr. Ant, Vol. I, p. 169). We do not 
propose to decide this question, although we have no doubt 
that the preponderance of probabilities seems to favor Dr. 
Smith's positive opinion. 

Evidently our trine immersion friends must agree with 
Dr. Smith, and hold that u no unprejudiced interpreter ac- 
quainted with the forms of speech habitually employed by 
Irenaeus himself, and by the early Fathers generally, will 
doubt that when Irenaeus thus speaks of infants and little 
ones, as well as others of more mature age, being 'born 
again unto Grod,' he refers to the fact of their being bap- 
tized." To be consistent they cannot avoid this. They 
quote Justin, who died about twenty-five years before 
Irenaeus, which they translate as follows : " Then we bring 
them to some place where there is water, and they are 
baptized by the same way of baptism by which we were 
baptized" (Trine Im. traced to the Apost, p. 26). But Jus- 
tin did not use the word baptize, but the word regenerate. 
If regenerate means baptism in the writings of Justin, who 
died 176, because it is supposed to have a favorable bear- 
ing on trine immersion, why does it not also mean baptism 



72 INFANT BAPTISM. 

in the writings of Irenaeus, who died A. D. 202? The 
simple fact that the latter refers to infants is, in itself, no 
reason for insisting that it does not mean baptism ; and 
more especially so when we know that inside of twenty 
years after his death infant baptism is acknowledged to 
have been practiced. We are as ready to believe that the 
one speaks of baptism as the other ; but unfortunately for 
the advocates of trine immersion, Irenseus then clearly tes- 
tifies to infant baptism, but Justin does not so clearly 
speak of triple immersion. For to be " regenerated by the 
same method of regeneration with which we also ourselves 
were regenerated "is an expression every way consistent 
with single immersion. We are hence forced to the con- 
clusion that if there is ample ground in patristic testimony 
to justify the church in the practice of triple immersion, 
so is there, also, ample ground to justify it in the practice 
of infant immersion. We reject both, neither for want of 
patristic evidence of their practice, nor a difference in the 
strength of the evidence for the two practices ; but because, 
in despite of this evidence, we can find no proof of Divine 
or Apostolic authority for such practices. 

Origin, who died A. D. 254, also speaks in unmistakable 
terms of infant baptism, and calls it " a rite derived from 
the Apostles" (HagenbacKs Hist. Doc, Vol. I, p. 201). 
His own words are as follows : "For this also it was that 
the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give bap- 
tism even to infants." 

Ambrose, who died A. D. 390, says : "Infants that are 
baptized are reformed back again from wickedness to the 
primitive state of their nature." Chrysostom, as well as 
many others, testifies in similar terms. 

Cyprian, who died A. D. 258, speaks for himself as fol- 
lows: "As far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be 



SELF-IMMERSION — BAPTISM IN SAND — IN WINE, &c. 73 

lost. It is not for us to hinder any person from baptism 
and the grace of God ; which rule, as it holds to all, so we 
think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants." 
In the same year he wrote a letter to Fidus, stating what 
had been done on this subject by a Council of sixty-six 
bishops, which was held at Carthage, in Africa. He says : 
"But as regards the case of infants, who you say should 
not be baptized within the second or third dny after their 
birth, and that respect should be had to the law of the 
ancient circumcision, whence you think that one newly born 
should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth 
day, we all in our Council thought very differently." 

It is unmistakably evident, therefore, that infant baptism 
rests on an equally good foundation with, triple immersion. 
By infant baptism, of course, immersion is meant. Other 
slight innovations in connection with baptism also occurred 
at this early period. Thus, for instance, self-immersion 
was practiced by some. Others contended for the validity 
of baptism in sand in case a man was converted on the 
desert and in danger of dying before he could reach water. 
The validity of baptism in wine was also seriously advo- 
cated ; but it was only allowed in cases of the last neces- 
sity. Among a people and in an age where such predis- 
positions prevailed it would rather be a strange thing if 
trine immersion had not taken the place of the single im 
mersion of Apostolic times. 

But changes in the ordinance of baptism were not limited 
to subjects, mode and element The seed was also planted 
in the third century from which has grown the prepossess- 
ing but pernicious tree of perfusion — pouring and sprink- 
ling — resulting in an entire change of the action of baptism- 
This change in the action of baptism had its origin in 
clinic baptism, i. e., the pouring of water upon sick persons, 



74 ORIGIN OF SPRINKLING FOR BAPTISM. 

in their beds, in place of immersion. It was a substitute 
permitted only in extreme cases, and because of the as- 
sumed essentiality of baptism to salvation. The first known 
instance of affusion was the case of Novatian, some time 
before A. D. 251. And although there was serious objec- 
tion taken later to his election as Bishop of Rome, "an 
objection in which all the clergymen united" (PergiUy's 
Guide to Baptism, p. 77) ; yet the act of affusion was per- 
mitted to stand for baptism. From that time on (A. D. 
250) affusion was permitted and defended, but only in cases 
of necessity and in prospect of death. Nevertheless, out 
of it grew the more modern practice of accepting sprinkling 
for the baptism which Christ instituted. These facts are 
amply illustrated in the case of the Jew converted to 
Christianity in passing through a dry and desert country. 
It occurred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, near the close 
of the second century. If genuine, as vouched for by 
Joannes Moschus, it ante-dates the case of Novatian some 
fifty years. This Jew, after his conversion, "was seized 
with grievous illness, and being apparently at the point of 
death begged his companions to baptize him. They re- 
plied that there was neither priest nor water at hand, and 
that without these baptism could not be had. "But being 
earnestly adjured not to refuse him, they divested the man, 
and sprinkled h'im three times (the triple baptism of Ter- 
tullian's time) with sand instead of water, saying they 
baptized him," &c. Authorities for this will be found in 
Joannes Moschus. It is also quoted by Bingham (Antiq., 
book XI, c. ii, § 5). 

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who died A. D. 258, de- 
fends clinic baptism or affusion. Magnus, as well as 
others, doubted the propriety of this practice, and addressed 
a letter to Cyprian, asking " whether they are to be es- 



CYPRIAN OF CLINIC BAPTISM. 75 

teemed legitimate Christians who are not washed in the 
water, but only poured about " (Cyprian, Epis. 69). Such 
a question could never have arisen relative to trine immer- 
sion. It was so much less of an innovation, or of a mod- 
ification of the usual practice, that it created no perceptible 
opposition. Not so with these other innovations. But 
Cyprian replied : " I, as far as my poor ability conceiveth, 
account that the Divine blessings can in no respect be mu- 
tilated and weakened, nor any less gift be imparted, when 
what is drawn from the Divine bounty is accepted with 
the full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver. For, 
in the saving sacrament the contagion of sin is not so 
washed away as in the ordinary washing of flesh is the 
filth of the skin and body ? so that there should be need of 
saltpetre and other appliances, and a bath and a pool, in 
which the poor body may be washed and cleansed. For 
otherwise is the breast of the believer washed, otherwise is 
the mind of man cleansed, by the worthiness of faith. In 
the saving sacraments, when need compels and Grod vouch- 
safes his mercy, his compendious methods confer the whole 
benefit on believers. Nor should it disturb any one that 
the sick seem only to be sprinkled or affused with water when 
they obtain the grace of the Lord. Whence it is apparent 
that the sprinkling also of water has like force with the 
saving washing, and that when this is done in the church, 
where the faith both of the giver and receiver is entered, 
all holds good, and is consummated and perfected by the 
power of the Lord and the truth of faith.' 1 

If Cyprian is good authority for trine immersion, why 
not for sprinkling ? If patristic evidence in favor of three 
immersions is a good foundation for that mode of baptism, 
why is it not equally good for this action for baptism ? And 
Cyprian does not stand alone as a witness for this excep- 



76 WATER FOR WINE IN THE COMMUNION. 

tional practice of sprinkling for baptism. Others testify 
to the same effect. And though for centuries the practice 
was confined to clinics, it nevertheless was, so to speak, the 
ovnm whence in due time came the practice which to so 
great an extent has supplanted the valid baptism of God's 
word. And to-day there are those who will affirm with 
all the confidence of profound and unconscious ignorance 
that immersion is not baptism ; or that Christ instituted 
sprinkling as much as immersion. 

But these innovations in early times were not confined 
to baptism. The Communion suffered much in the same 
way. As early as the time of Tatian, a disciple of Justin 
Martyr, and leader of a sect of the Gnostics, who died near 
the close of the second century, water was used by the 
anti-Judaistic Encratites in place of wine in celebrating the 
Communion. They did not understand Christ to have 
commanded the use of water at the Communion, but they 
held the use of wine at any time to be sinful, and hence 
were called Hydroparastates. And because of this opinion 
they boldly rejected the example and precept of the Mas- 
ter, and changed a solemn institution of his word (Guer- 
ickes Oh. Hist, Vol. I, p. 177). The Ebionites did the 
same. Once a year, on the feast of the Passover, they par- 
took of the Communion, in remembrance of the last supper 
of Christ, using unleavened bread and water only (Epi- 
phanius, XXX, 16). 

It is needless to pursue this subject further. A similar 
process of change, and modification, and innovation could 
be pointed out in other respects ; but what has passed under 
our observation is amply sufficient to indicate the tendency 
of the age. It also fully shows the danger of trusting to 
patristic testimony, in the absence of a Divine institution, 
as a means of establishing the Apostolic or Divine origin 



TRINE IMMERSION FOUND WANTING. 77 

of an j rite. And it makes it strikingly manifest, that to 
be consistent one must either reject both trine immersion 
and infant baptism because not instituted by Christ; or 
else accept both because alike sustained by the testimony 
of the Fathers. It is, of course, understood that by infant 
baptism here we mean immersion. 

There is also another point that this investigation has 
made clear. That is, that as yet we find no traces of new 
ordinances or sacraments. There were already certain ad- 
ditions to existing rites which were later separated into 
distinct " sacraments ; " but as yet there is no such recog- 
nition of them. If, therefore, we should in a subsequent 
part of this work find another ordinance in this age of the 
church, there would in this fact be presumptive evidence 
in its favor. But for the present we insist on the proposi- 
tion announced in the opening of this chapter, that the ex- 
istence of a practice, or the belief of a doctrine, one, two, 
or three centuries after the days of the Apostles, is no proof 
whatsoever that it was instituted by Christ or taught and 
practiced by the Apostles. And as triple immersion rests 
solely upon the practice of the church from the close of the 
second century on, and upon the claim of Apostolic tradi- 
tion in its favor, as stated by witnesses of the third century, 
but is without authority in God's word or the practice of 
the Apostles, we cannot receive it as an ordinance of divine 
institution. Weighed in the just balances of an unbiased 
logic it is clearly found wanting. 




Chapter X. 

Origin of Trine Immersion. 

HILE we do not claim to be able positively to 
point to a definite time in which trine immersion 
originated, a further discussion of the sources of 
error and innovations may possibly reflect some light upon 
the question. We can only pursue such an investigation 
profitably by divesting ourselves of all preconceived views 
of the state of the Christian world in that early age ; by 
placing ourselves in imagination near the close of the 
Apostolic era, and by moving down the stream of time 
with the current of events, and observing the facts of well- 
authenticated history as they transpired. We shall readily 
discover that it is not an unaccountable thing that trine 
immersion should so early have found advocates, and that 
before the middle of the third century it should have so 
generally prevailed and been regarded as of Apostolic, if 
not of Divine, origin. Eather, we shall find that trine im- 
mersion was a very natural innovation at the time when 
we come upon the first traces of it, and among those who 
are reported as having introduced it. It was but a limited 
and harmless deviation from the true baptism compared 
with some other practices that prevailed. What is it as 

(78) 



SOURCES OF ERRORS AND INNOVATIONS. 79 

compared with infant baptism, of which the New Testa- 
ment knows absolutely nothing, which yet was accounted 
of Apostolic origin almost, if not quite, as early as trine im- 
mersion ? Who will point out when it was introduced ? 
And yet where is the Baptist that does not utterly repu- 
diate it as an innovation ? 

There are at least three circumstances which, in the first 
century after the death of the Apostles, contributed very 
materially to the introduction into the church of errors and 
innovations. The first of these is the fact that the churches 
were not in possession of the Scriptures in that complete 
form in which we now have them. The Canon of the New 
Testament was only gradually formed. Not until about 
the time of Tertullian was there a collection of the New 
Testament writings which was generally received as con- 
stituting the Scriptures. And even then the New Testa- 
ment, as we have it, was not the complete and exclusive 
authority which it now is. Before that time every thing 
was fragmentary and unsettled. Writings which are now 
received and known to be genuine and authentic were re- 
jected. The Serverians rejected all the Epistles of Paul. 
Some, as the Prodicians, accepted no Scriptures as binding. 
Others received one of the Gospels. But while this was 
the case respecting the canonical Scriptures of the New 
Testament, in many localities spurious Gospels and Epistles 
were received, in some of which the wildest and most irra- 
tional things are contained. There were extant among 
these some pretended writings of Christ, and also some 
pretended contemporaneous accounts of his life ; also apoc- 
ryphal Gospels and Epistles ascribed to the various Apos- 
tles. These teach many things entirely at variance with, 
and even contrary to, the doctrines of our New Testament. 

This fact alone would prove seriously detrimental to the 



80 DOCTKINES MODIFY ORDINANCES. 

integrity and purity of the Apostolic doctrine, and would 
prove the occasion of differences in doctrine and practice. 
Even now, with the same Scriptures in the hands of all, 
what diversities of doctrines and duties are deduced there- 
from by various religious bodies. But, in addition to this, 
we need to remember that these first centuries of the 
Christian era were the formative period of the church. 
Neither the Master, nor his Disciples, propounded a dog- 
matic system. Scientific theology is of later origin, and 
the first period of the church, the age of Apologetics, also 
was the period in which tenets and dogmas began to be 
formulated. But before such development, what may be 
known as the faith of the Apostles was firmly and histori- 
cally established by bringing together those elements of 
Christian doctrine which are accounted essential (Hist of 
Doc, vol. I, p. 52). But this Eule of Faith, or Apostles' 
Creed, was, like the Constitution of the United States, a 
general law, in the interpretation of which differences at 
once sprung up. Every departure from the received in- 
terpretation of this canon of doctrine was considered heresy. 
Hence, heretics abounded and sects began to multiply. 
These heresies, as they are called, were often only differ- 
ent interpretations of the same Scriptures; but at other 
times they were doctrines derived from different sources. 

The facility with which new doctrines and practical in- 
novations were introduced was increased by the isolated 
and scattered state of the churches. Churches were often 
separated by long distances and with bat little inter-com- 
munication. Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, 
Armenia, India, Arabia, Egypt, Greece, Italy, and Gaul 
were the countries that had respectively their centers of 
churchly influence and power. In one locality they had 
portions of the Scriptures which they had not at other 



DOCTRINES MODIFY ORDINANCES. 81 

points, or accepted as Scripture what other churches and 
leaders rejected. Practices and doctrines would thus orig- 
inate in one locality ; be accepted as of Divine and Apos- 
tolic origin, and thus transmitted, with the Divine seal upon 
them, to other localities. There are indications that this was 
the case with trine immersion. It will be noticed that the 
testimony to its practice is confined to Africa for the first fifty 
years. Here it may have originated, and been carried 
thence to all parts of the Christian world as an Apostolic 
practice. 

Now, along with these three circumstances so favorable 
for the introduction of new doctrines and practices, we must 
also bear in mind the intimate relation which has ever ex- 
isted between doctrines and ordinances. Doctrines have a 
controlling power in modifying ordinances. Nearly all 
the modifications of, and additions to, ordinances, where 
they are professedly of Divine institution, are the result of 
doctrinal views. As already seen, one of the very earliest 
innovations was infant baptism. This was the outgrowth 
of two doctrines, viz : The doctrine of infant moral de- 
pravity, and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Hence 
the absolute necessity of infant baptism in order to infant 
salvation. Eantism (a term to which those who practice 
sprinkling for baptism should by no means object) is 
another outgrowth of these doctrines. These were radical 
changes of the subjects and the action of baptism. 

If such results have followed the development of these 
doctrines, is not the possibility clearly evident that a mod- 
ification, or a more positive formation, of trinitarian ideas 
might lead to a triplication of the baptism instituted by 
Christ ? History records the fact that the doctrine concern- 
ing the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and their 
interrelations, was gradually evolved. Into the details of 



82 THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

this evolution we cannot now enter, but our readers can 
readily verify our statement by consulting any standard 
work on the history of Christian doctrines. Suffice it here 
to say, that the term trinity did not take its place in the 
language of Christian theology until the time of Tertullian. 
Through his teachings the term Son was first quite dis- 
tinctly applied to the personality of the Logos ; and by him 
also, or by Theophylus, A. D. 183, the word trinitas was 
first employed to designate the Divine mystery of three 
persons in the unity of one Godhead {Hodge). Before this 
date it could, with little truth, be said that the doctrine of 
the essential Trinity was adequately understood. Some 
confounded the Logos with the Spirit, and others denied 
him a coordinate relation to the Father and the Son ; while 
still others held to that peculiar system of subordination in 
which the Son was made inferior to the Father, and the 
Holy Spirit to both the Father and the Son. 

That these views might have some influence on the mode 
of baptism, changing it from a single to a threefold immer- 
sion, is quite possible. And the more so if it should be 
made apparent that either the whole of Matthew's Grospel, 
which alone contains what is designated as "the longer 
baptismal formula 11 (Matt, xxviii: 19), or that paragraph 
embracing the said baptismal formula, was unknown in 
Africa before the doctrine of the Trinity had been so fully 
developed. Eusebius tells us (Ecct. Hist.) that the Hebrew 
Grospel of Matthew was found among the Christians in India 
in the latter part of the second century, by Pantaenus, the 
missionary and philosopher ; who afterwards with so much 
celebrity presided over the catechetic school at Alexandria, 
in Egypt (Hist. Books of the Bible, p. 166). What more 
natural than that the concurrence of these two facts, viz : 
The more complete and perfect development of the trinus, 



BAPTISMAL FOKMULA. 83 

threefold or three-in-one God, and the discovery of the 
Gospel by Matthew with its baptismal formula, "into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost," should have had sufficient influence to change the 
single into a threefold baptism — the "one baptism in three 
immersions" to correspond with the one Godhead in three 
persons? And how natural, too, that it should at once, 
and with assurance, be asserted that this mode of baptism 
is authorized by the formula, and so is of Apostolic origin. 
Such a change would be of no moment compared with the 
introduction of infant baptism. 

And now, let it be remembered that about this time trine 
immersion was probably first practiced, according to the 
testimony which we have reviewed, and that it is first men- 
tioned in the very place to which for the first time Pan- 
tsenus brought the Hebrew Gospel by Matthew. Before 
this time we have also no record of the use of the baptismal 
formula in Matthew in the administration of the ordinance. 
Baptism had been generally administered only in the name 
of Jesus. ISTeander, the prince of modern ecclesiastical his- 
torians, says that the formula of baptism which is regarded 
as the older is the " shorter one which refers only to Christ, 
to which there is allusion in the New Testament." Dr. 
Hare also says in his Church History: "Baptism as an 
initiatory rite was performed simply in the name of Jesus." 
This sentence occurs in his chapter on the " Apostolic 
Church," in his " History of the Christian Church." Kob- 
inson, in his History of Baptism, says : " There is no men- 
tion of baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost," in immediately post- Apostolic 
times." This testimony, of a negative character, certainly 
becomes very strong and significant in view of the fact that 
Peter enjoined baptism "in the name of Jesus Christ" 



84 INTRODUCTION OF TRINE IMMERSION. 

(Acts ii : 38) ; that when Philip preached in Samaria, to 
which place Peter and John were sent upon hearing " that 
Samaria had received the Word of God," those who be- 
lieved " were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus " 
(Acts viii : 5. 12, 16) ; and that under the instructions of 
Paul those who had been baptized " unto John's baptism " 
were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 
xix : 3, 5). 

But as soon as the doctrine of the Trinity was developed 
and the Gospel of Matthew brought from India to Egypt, 
trine immersion, with individual exceptions, became grad- 
ually the rule. To the use of the formula furnished by 
Matthew in the administration of trine immersion we have 
the testimony of Augustine (de Bapt., lib. vi, cap. 25), 
Cyprian (Epist. lxxiii), Tertullian (de JBapt., c. 13), and 
others. Basil speaks of baptism as invalid if not adminis- 
tered with the words of the formula in Matthew (De. Sp. 
jScto., cap. 12). But Ambrose favored the use of the 
shorter formula. But the formula found in Matthew had, 
probably, as much, if not more, to do with the introduction 
of trine immersion as correct and dogmatic views of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, though Marcion and his followers 
continued at least for some time to use the shorter formula. 
The Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Praxeans, and the 
Monarchians were distinct schools or sects which originated 
about the middle of the second century and before its 
close. At least the former two were Gnostic sects. Some 
of these Gnostic sects wholly rejected baptism; but the 
Marcionites and Valentinus and his followers held baptism 
in high esteem (Hagenbach). They did not belong to the 
church — the Catholic church — of that time, and Hagenbach 
testifies that their "mode of baptism differed from that of 
the Catholic church." What was their mode of baptizing? 



INTRODUCTION OF TRINE IMMERSION. 85 

Hagenbach says it was trine immersion — "the threefold 
baptism of the Marcionites. " Thurman also states that 
Marcion, the leader of the Marcionites, commenced "to 
baptize the Gentiles by dipping them three times." Mar- 
cion pretended to bring about the restoration of primitive 
doctrine and polity ; but is set down here by these two 
authorities as deviating from the practice of the Catholic, 
or general church as it was then, in the matter of baptism. 
We do not know upon what authority these statements 
are made, as no ancient writer mentions trine immersion 
before Tertullian, who was born A. D. 160. But we know 
that Hagenbach is an almost undisputed authority on mat- 
ters of church doctrine, and that Thurman is not likely to 
state so important a point without some adequate testimony 
to sustain it. It is also in perfect harmony with other as- 
certained facts. Thus it will account for the silence of all 
the Fathers down to the time of Tertullian on the subject 
of trine immersion. It will explain the difference of views 
held in the third and fourth centuries as to the origin of 
trine immersion. And it fully agrees with the inference 
naturally to be drawn from the testimony of Tertullian 
and the instance of baptism with sand already noticed, that 
trine immersion must have been introduced before A. D. 
200. 

Marcion, according to Gruericke and Shedd, was a very 
likely person to begin such an innovation. He was an 
anti-Judaistic Gnostic, and in strong sympathy with the 
Gentile-Christian tendency. He was the son of a bishop, 
said to have been excommunicated by his own father on 
account of his contempt for ecclesiastical authority and 
Apostolical tradition. It was the main characteristic of his 
school, according to Niednier, to sunder Christianity from 
its historical connections. He believed in three deific 



86 INTRODUCTION OF TRINE IMMERSION. 

principles, if he was not what we would properly call a 
Trinitarian, which could account for his threefold baptism. 
Although we do not say that in these things we have suffi- 
cient positive proof that he originated trine immersion, it 
yet shows that such origin would not be inconsistent. And 
when we add to this the incontroverted testimony of Ha- 
genbach, as above given, the case becomes increasingly 
clear and indisputable. 

Not only have we the testimony of Hagenbach, who cites 
authorities, that Marcion and his followers baptized by a 
u mode of baptism different from the Catholic [or general] 
church," and that it was a a threefold baptism;' 7 but we 
also have evidence to show that other schools and sects of 
the same time did not practice the threefold baptism of 
the Marcionites. Bishop Beveridge says : " The Monarch- 
ians, the Praxeans, and other heretics did not baptize by 
trine immersion." They were heretics, according to cer- 
tain criteria of judgment, just as the Marcionites and Val- 
entineans were. All these parties or sects flourished about 
the same time. Along with the two specifically mentioned 
by Beveridge as practicing single immersion are generally 
classed the followers of Noetus and Beryllus ; the former 
of Asia Minor, the latter of Arabia. Here, then, we have 
single immersion testified to as being practiced before the 
time of Tertullian, and under circumstances which indicate 
that it was the original practice. The conclusion, then, is 
by no means a forced one, after this protracted and critical 
investigation, that single immersion was the original and 
divinely instituted mode and action of baptism, and that 
trine immersion, as well as affusion and pa?do-baptism, 
was of later and human origin. 



PART II. 

THE APOSTOLIC PRACTICE OF FEET-WASHING. 



§x$V 





Chapter I. 

The Ultimate Authority for an Ordinance. 

HE Church of Grod has always taught and practiced 
the religious rite known as the washing of the saints' 
feet. Basing all religious rites upon the authority 
of Jesus Christ, we invariably inquire whether the particu- 
lar ordinance in question has been instituted by him. In 
the case of baptism we find two facts which, irrespective of 
the historical observance of the ordinance, are sufficient in 
our judgment to determine both the specific action required 
and the moral obligation to perform it. Christ has com- 
manded his disciples and followers to be baptized, and he 
has commanded immersion. At a comparatively early 
age the divine institution in both these particulars was per- 
verted, in that immersion was changed to affusion, and 
children instead of disciples were made the subjects. But 
knowing the divine command, we are neither disconcerted 
nor turned aside from the right ways of the Lord by this 
perversion of a divine ordinance. 

In a similar manner do we find our authority for observ- 
ing the Communion. It is true, indeed, that the words of 
institution, as given by the Lord Jesus, are, as a perpetual 
command, perceptibly weak. But supplemented by the 
Apostolic practice and the revelation given to Paul touch- 
ing this rite, its perpetual obligation cannot be called in 

(89) 



90 CHRIST ALONE INSTITUTES ORDINANCES. 

question ; and we therefore observe it, and observe it at 
the time of day when it was instituted, and when, accord- 
ing to the name it so commonly goes by and the evident 
practice in early times, it is most appropriate to do so. 
Christ alone has the right, and to him exclusively belongs 
the prerogative, of instituting ordinances of religion for the 
church ; and we do not claim any power to modify, in any 
respect, much less to abrogate, any ordinance which he has 
instituted. 

An ordinance being an outward, formal, sensuous, act of 
moral significance, performed in obedience to the command 
of Christ, wherever we find these elements we are ready to 
acknowledge an ordinance to be perpetually observed. 
Now, in reading John xiii we find all the elements of an 
ordinance. We have : 

(1) An outward, formal, sensuous act performed by the 
Lord Jesus. 

(2) We have an act of special and appropriate moral 
significance. 

(3) We have the specific and unquestioned word of 
command that this act is to be performed by the disciples 
of Christ. We hence claim that Christ instituted this rite 
as a monumental ordinance in the church, and for this rea- 
son we observe it. We are sometimes asked whether Christ 
commanded his disciples to teach this rite ; whether the 
command in Matt, xxviii : 20, "Teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you," does 
not refer to the things he commanded his disciples to ob- 
serve. But while such a construction is in harmony with 
the terms employed and the grammatical construction of 
the sentence, the evident meaning is, that the Apostles 
were to teach the disciples made by them everything, both 
of faith and practice, which Christ had commanded or 



DID THE APOSTLES TEACH FEET- WASHING ? 91 

taught them. But assuming that such is the force of this 
command, those who reject feet- washing ask us : "If this 
is so, and if Christ commanded the Apostles to observe the 
washing of feet, why did they not teach it ? or if they did, 
and it was practiced, why have we no record?" In this 
form the question is hard to answer, and it might be nearest 
the exact truth to say in reply : We do not know. There 
are very many points in New Testament history with ref- 
erence to which unanswerable questions of this kind can 
readily be asked, and which can just as little be answered 
as this one. The reason for many things cannot be given. 
But let it be remembered that our inability to give a reason 
for the existence of a fact is no evidence against the fact 
itself. So in this case. The washing of feet may have been 
practiced in Apostolic times and still no record of it kept 
by the writers of the New Testament. Hence, their silence 
is by no means conclusive, if indeed they are wholly silent 
on the point. 

The practice of any ordinance in the Apostolic church 
is regarded as furnishing an unanswerable interpretation to 
the teachings of Christ, should there be in anywise a dis- 
pute with reference thereto. It is claimed that this is the 
case with the Communion, which rests upon a slender 
foundation in the words of Christ. So the duty of observ- 
ing a literal baptism is emphasized and rendered clear by 
the practice of the Apostles. Why, say those who are op- 
posed to feet-washing, does this not hold good in reference 
to this rite ? In this question and the accompanying com- 
ments we can trace three points which need careful discus- 
sion. These are as follows, viz : 

I. The Communion was observed in Apostolic 

TIMES, AND RECORDS OF THIS FACT OCCUR IN THE WRIT- 
INGS of the Apostles and Evangelists. 



92 THE COMMUNION IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

II Excepting the text in Timothy (1 Timothy v : 
9, 10), there is no mention in the new testament 
of the practice of washing feet by the christians 
in Apostolic times. 

III. The washing of feet in Timothy is classed 

WITH OTHER GOOD AND LAWFUL WORKS, AND SO IS NOT 
TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ORDINANCE. 

From these so-called premises the inference is drawn 
(for it cannot be dignified as a conclusion), that the wash- 
ing of feet is not an ordinance. We dispute such a prop- 
osition, that a rite commanded by Christ is not an ordinance 
because its observance as such in the Apostolic churches 
is not on record. It is unsound and dangerous. And yet 
this is the implication whenever we are challenged to pro- 
duce the record of such observance. If the Apostles and 
primitive disciples did not observe a given rite it is evi- 
dence that they did not understand Christ to have com- 
manded it. But the absence of any record of such ob- 
servance is no proof of non-observance. If the non-ob- 
servance could be demonstrated we should be willing to 
concede the force of the argument, but this is not possible, 
and hence we reject the conclusion. 

In disputing the conclusion of our opponents we are 
specially mindful of two facts, viz : 

(1) The peculiar and meager record of the observance of 
the Communion, in Apostolic times, as found in the New 
Testament ; and, 

(2) The fact that positive evidence of the observance of 
feet- washing in Apostolic times, as a religious rite, may not 
be wholly wanting. These points will become more ap- 
parent in the further discussion of the three propositions 
given above, to which careful attention is invited. 




Chapter II. 

The Communion in the New Testament. 

HOSE who challenge us to produce any instances of 
the practice of washing the saints' feet in the Apos- 
tolic churches lay themselves open to a similar de- 
mand on our part to furnish proof of the celebration of the 
Communion among the primitive Christians. They affirm 
that this was done. We call for the record. Their af- 
firmation is in the first proposition quoted in the preceding 
chapter, which proposition we are now investigating. It 
is as follows, viz : 

I. The Communion" was observed in Apostolic 

TIMES, AND RECORDS OF THIS FACT OCCUR IN THE WRIT- 
INGS of the Apostles and Evangelists. 

1. We meet this in part by a counter proposition, and 
throw the burden of proof upon our opponents where, un- 
der this affirmation, it justly belongs. We affirm that so 
far as the Acts and all the Epistles, except the first Epistle 
to the Corinthians, are concerned, the Communion is not 
once mentioned. Our opponents interpret the " breaking 
of bread" in the Acts to mean partaking of the Communion. 
This is little more than a naked assumption ; an assumption 
which has to face facts of a very clearly defined and obsti- 
nate character. Indeed, there is no possibility of proving 

(93) 



94 COMMUNION" IN THE ACTS. 

that to break bread means to celebrate the Communion. 
Among other points which might be advanced against un- 
derstanding the term thus is the fact that in not a single 
instance in the Acts is the wine mentioned in connection 
with the bread. We do not say that the Communion was 
not celebrated in connection with the meals indicated ; we 
only say there is no mention of the fact, and no means 
whereby the affirmation that it was can be established. We 
cannot here, without unnecessary repetition, enter upon a 
discussion of this point ; but we ask the reader to turn to 

Part III, chap. IX, p. of this book, where he will find 

the question fully investigated. 

2. The term "breaking bread" is used to indicate the 
fact that in primative times social meals were eaten by the 
Disciples on occasions when assembled for religious wor- 
ship. The agapoe or love- feasts originated in this way. 
If J now, at this breaking of bread the communion was cele- 
brated without being mentioned, then it is also possible 
that feet- washing was observed at the same meals. The 
one supposition is just as possible and natural as the other. 
Besides, the presumption is in favor of the practice of 
washing feet at these meals. This is seen in the following 
two facts, viz : 

(1.) That these meals were largely in imitation of the 
Lord's last supper with his Disciples, hence for a long time 
called the Lord's supper by way of eminence. (2.) That 
at this Lord's supper, or Lord's last supper, Christ washed 
the feet of his Disciples, as well as instituted the Com- 
munion. If, now, the Disciples later ate this common 
meal in imitation of the Lord's last supper, and, as our op- 
ponents suppose, observed the Communion, what is to hinder 
us from also supposing that at the same time they washed 
feet, as Christ had done ? 



THE COMMUXIOST IN THE EPISTLES. 95 

Moreover, the Savior taught us that if we. love him we 
will keep his commandments. No one denies that in John 
xiii : 14-15, there is more of a commandment than in Matt, 
xxvi: 26-27, or Mark xiv: 22-23, or Luke xxii: 19-20. 
There is no doubt that the Apostles loved Jesus. Hence 
they kept the commandment in John xiii. And as Luke 
nowhere mentions the keeping of the commandment in 
Luke xxii : 19-20, so he does not mention the keeping of 
the one in John xiii : 14-15. 

3. But if there is no evidence in the Acts of the observ- 
ance of the Communion, then there is only left the text in 
Corinthians as New Testament evidence of the observance 
of the Communion by the Apostolic churches. That text, 
it will be observed, corrects a reprehensible practice among 
the Corinthians in the matter of a common feast or meal 
which they had probably substituted for the Communion. 
It is clear proof that they pretended to observe the Com- 
munion. It is just as clear proof that they had made a 
terrible perversion of it ; and this perversion was the occa- 
sion of Paul's reference to the Communion, and of the in- 
junctions he lays down, just as it is said : " Evil customs 
give rise to good laws." Had there been no such abuse 
existing in the church at Corinth the Epistles of the New 
Testament would have been wholly silent touching the 
observance of the Communion ; and as the washing of feet 
had not been thus perverted, no mention is made of it. 

Such a conclusion seems fully warranted from the fact 
that all the other Epistles are silent on the Communion, 
just as the acts of the Apostles are. So on a similar occa- 
sion the washing of feet was introduced into the proceed- 
ings of a general council. This occurred in Spain, at the 
council of Elvira, in A. D. 306. Seeing the abuse which 
some persons made of it, by putting confidence in it for the 



96 A TWO-EDGED SWORD. 

remission of sins, said Council ordered the suppression of 
the rite in Spain (Calmet). 

It hence becomes very apparent that this argument, 
drawn from the silence of the New Testament touching 
the observance of an ordinance, has two edges. If it is 
sufficient to destroy the ritual character of feet-washing as 
an ordinance of divine institution, it may prove equally 
effective against the Communion. If the opposers of feet- 
washing are not willing to go to this extreme length, then 
they may have to abandon their position altogether, or else 
sacrifice their consistency. For, evidently, so far as the 
elements of an ordinance are concerned, if they are found 
in any words and example of Christ, they are found in 
John xiii ; and as for a command, a specific law of institu- 
tion, words could not well be more definite and positive 
than these : " For I have given you an example that ye 
should do as I have done to you." While the moral ob- 
ligation to do what Christ has enjoined by precept and ex- 
ample is thus expressed : " If I, then, your Lord and Mas- 
ter, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one 
another's feet." And as the washing of feet and the Com- 
munion may ultimately be found to have equal confirma- 
tion in Apostolic practice, there would be no alternative 
but to reject both or accept both. 







Chapter III. 

Feet-washing in the New Testament 

AVINGr carefully examined in the previous chapter 
the first proposition, which affirms that the Com- 
munion was observed in Apostolic times, and that 
records of this fact occur in the writings of the Apostles 
and Evangelists, and having found but little foundation for 
the latter part of the proposition, we might naturally infer 
that the other propositions relative to feet-washing may 
also lack proof. If this is the case we have reason to think 
a diligent investigation will discover the fact. Upon such 
an investigation we are now prepared to enter. 
The second proposition is as follows, viz : 
II. Excepting the text in Timothy (1 Tim. v : 

9, 10) THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
OF THE PRACTICE OF WASHING FEET BY THE CHRIST- 
IANS in Apostolic times. 

It is supposed by some that the Apostle Paul must refer 
to at least three ordinances in his letter to the Corinthians 
(1 Cor. xi). If it were an undisputed fact that he makes 
use of the term ordinances in that restricted sense which is 
now so common, there could be but little doubt of the 
truthfulness of this position. He says : " Now, I praise 
7 (97) 



98 PAUL TO TIMOTHY ON FEET- WASHING. 

you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep - 
the ordinances as I delivered them unto you " (1 Cor. xi : 
2). Here is a plurality of ordinances. But he did not 
praise them for the manner in which they observed the 
Agape. Neither does he say that he delivered that unto 
them ; and the Communion they had not observed as he 
had received it from the Lord (1 Cor. xi : 17-23). Hence, 
there would be no plurality of ordinances, in our sense of 
the term, for them to observe if feet- washing was not one 
of them. This is the argument ; but to our mind it would 
not bear the test of a critical investigation, and hence we 
are not disposed to place much stress upon it. 

Accordingly we will concede the correctness of this sec- 
ond proposition ; that is, except in Timothy, there is no 
mention of feet- washing in the New Testament after the 
rite was performed by Christ. But in this respect, as we 
have already clearly demonstrated, it stands on an equality 
with the Communion. For, except in Corinthians, where 
an abuse is corrected, there is likewise no mention of the 
Communion in the New Testament after Christ had com- 
manded its observance. 

This fact gives additional force to the concluding par- 
agraph of the preceding chapter; unless, indeed, it should 
become evident in some way that this reference in Timothy 
to the washing of the saints' feet is to a customary act of 
hospitality, or merely to a good work, and not to an ordi- 
nance of religion. To this point we shall now specifically 
direct our attention. 

The third proposition affirmed by those who reject the 
washing of the saints' feet as a religious ordinance is as fol- 
lows, viz : 

III. The washing of feet in Timothy v : 9, 10, is 



PAUL TO TIMOTHY ON FEET-WASHING. 99 

CLASSED WITH OTHER GOOD AND LAWFUL WORKS, AND 
SO IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ORDINANCE. 

In other words, it is claimed that the washing of feet in 
Timothy is not an ordinance, but a good work. What 
reasons are assigned ? Simply that it is mentioned among 
"other good and lawful works." It is a work of hospi- 
tality, say our opponents generally. 

Our direct answer to this position is simple and brief. 
We affirm two propositions, which are sufficient to relieve 
us of the main weight of the burden of proof. These are 
as follows, viz : 

1. That the mention of feet- washing in the connection 
in which it stands (1 Tim. v : 10) is in nowise inconsistent 
with its character as an ordinance. This we shall endeavor 
to prove further on. 

2. That if it is a work of hospitality simply, it is very 
singular that Paul should first say: "If she have lodged 
strangers" specifically a work of hospitality; and that he 
should then add: " If she have washed the saints feet." 

It will presently appear that we need not go farther in 
an effort to furnish a direct answer to and refutation of this 
objection. A complete refutation will be found in the cor- 
rect interpretation of the text in question (1 Tim. v : 9, 10) 
as it appears in the light of authentic history. It is first 
requisite that we should have a better translation than that 
of the Authorized Version. The Revision gives it thus : 
"Let none be enrolled as a widow under three score years 
old." It is not clearly determined that this is what Paul 
meant. Dr. Smith says : " It is laid down in 1 Tim. v : 9, 
10, that a widow is not to be entered on the church-roll." 
The meaning of the words used by Paul is not difficult to 
determine. They mean that a widow is not to have her 
name put upon the catalogue until she has reached a certain 



100 DEACONESSES IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

age, etc. Bat what catalogue? We have good reasons for 
believing that the catalogue referred to was that of dea- 
conesses. The wives of deacons in those times, as far as 
we can learn, were deaconesses as a general thing. And 
now says Paul: Let not any widows be thus enrolled [as 
deaconesses] under a certain age, etc. Of course these 
widows thus enrolled were thereafter also provided for by 
the church. Nearly all the more recent commentators 
take this view. Others, however reverse the order, and 
hold that these widows had been deaconesses, and were 
now to be enrolled as beneficiaries. Even Dr. A. Clarke 
thinks that ividow in this connection was the name of an 
office [deaconess], because ordinarily filled, as he claims, 
by widows. 

Now, according to undisputed authority : 

1. The office of deaconess existed in the primitive church 
from the time of the Apostles down to the sixth century, 
and later. 

2. According to Dr. Blackburn {History of the Christian 
Church) this passage in Timothy (1 Tim. v : 9, 10) was 
quoted in the earliest post- Apostolic times as giving the 
duties and qualifications of deaconesses. Dr. Smith, quoting 
this text, adds : " These restrictions seem to have been con- 
sistently maintained in the early church/' A reference to 
the Apostolical Constitutions shows that they are elab- 
orately repeated as qualifications of an order of church 
officers. Origen and Tertullian and others show by their 
writings that they were in force in their times. Hence we 
feel justified in saying that this passage refers to the works 
and duties and qualifications of deaconesses. 

3. One of the commonly recognized duties of deaconesses 
was to wash the feet of the saints religiously ; that is, of 
the female saints. This was sometimes done at baptism, 



DEACOKESSES WASHING FEET. 101 

and again in connection with other services. Abundant 
authorities can be quoted to this effect up to the time of 
the Council of Elvira, A. D. 306, which expressly pro- 
hibited the religious washing of feet ; but later, in A. D. 
675, we find it expressly sanctioned by the Synod of To- 
ledo. At this time the practice was wide-spread (Dr. 
Smith), though probably not universal. And the women, 
and especially the deaconesses, officially washed the feet of 
women. 

Hence, it is justly claimed that Paul here (1 Tim. v: 
9-10) means either that the name of no widow was to be 
entered on the catalogue of beneficiaries who had not been 
a deaconess, and that among the duties of a deaconess was 
the washing of the saints' feet ; or, which seems more pro- 
bable, that no widow was to be enrolled as a church offi- 
cial — a deaconess — unless she had already given evidence 
of her fitness for the position as required in this text. Dr. 
Lange says : ''Almost all the older commentators are of the 
first opinion; nearly all the recent ones of the latter." 
Accordingly, Paul's language amounts to this: Let no 
widow be enrolled who has not served the church in the 
capacity of a deaconess ; and the part of this service he 
speaks of was to attend upon the female members in the 
washing of feet. 

This also shows why the washing of feet is mentioned 
and not the Communion or baptism. These two ordinances 
were administered by the ministers and elders ; the other 
one by the deacons. Hence he could not say, if she have 
been baptized ; or, if she have partaken of the Communion ; 
but with striking propriety could he say, if she have 
washed the saints' feet. It, therefore, appears very evi- 
dent that the washing of feet has as much support as an 
Apostolic practice in the New Testament as the Commun- 



102 DEACONESSES WASHING FEET. 

ion; and had it not been for the abase of the Communion 
at Corinth, feet- washing would be better supported histori- 
cally in the New Testament than the Communion, just as 
the command to observe it is clearer and more positive, as 
Dr. Abbott acknowledges. 



®J^2y\§ 



Chapter IV. 

The Post- Apostolic Practice of Feet- Washing. 

N discussing the question of trine immersion our Ger- 
man Baptist brethren put great stress on the practice 
^8L of this mode of baptism in the early church. They 
insist that traces of it can be found within one hundred 
years, if not less, from the death of the Apostles. They 
do not claim that such practice alone is sufficient to estab- 
lish the fact that trine immersion was the original mode ; 
but, in their judgment, it raises a presumption to that effect. 
If, now, there were the least evidence in the New Testa- 
ment that such a mode of baptism was practiced by the 
Apostles, such a claim would be materially strengthened. 
Indeed, it would be difficult to resist the conclusion that 
such a mode of baptism was originally instituted by Christ. 
The serious defect in their chain of evidence is that it sud- 
denly breaks off about the time of Tertullian, about A. D. 
200, and beyond that there is nothing to support their po- 
sition. 

The same course of reasoning is followed with reference 
to the love-feast. There is this advantage, however, with 
reference to this custom, viz : It can be traced to the time 

(103) 



104 THE FATHEES OIST FEET-WASHING. 

of Jude, who speaks distinctly of the agapce among those 
to whom his Epistle is addressed. This is conclusive evi- 
dence that a meal in all respects similar to the agapce of 
later times was then common, and that the name was de- 
rived from the language employed by Jude. And even 
more than this. Common meals were probably a frequent 
custom from the very first. The peculiar circumstances 
of the early disciples gave rise to the practice of "breaking 
bread from house to house," and so the more formal com- 
munion meal of later years originated, degenerating at 
times into festive carousals. The serious defect in this 
argument from history lies in the fact that the human 
origin of the custom is too clearly apparent, as well as in 
the entire absence of anything like a divine word of insti- 
tution. 

Advocates of infant baptism and of affusion follow a 
similar line of argument, and with no better success. In 
their case the absence of instances of the baptism of infants 
in Apostolic times adds force to the entire want of even the 
semblance of a Divine command. And yet history is one 
of the main strongholds of the Poedobaptist ; a refuge which 
can be readily flanked and left in the rear in an onward 
march to conquest. A chain without an anchor is of no 
value to a vessel driven by a storm or borne from the har- 
bor by the receding waves. The word of the Divine com- 
mand is the anchor to every chain of evidence, or argu- 
ment, in favor of the ritual character of any ceremony. 
When this is wanting the chain of argument and evidence 
is fatally defective. 

Now, did we find this same defect with reference to feet- 
washing we should not simply make no effort to trace the 
history of this rite in the Apostolic and post- Apostolic 
churches; but we should reject its claims entirely to being 



DR. SCHAFF ON FEET- WASHING. 105 

in anywise entitled to the rank and dignity of an ordinance 
of religion. But when we find, as in John xiii, an un- 
questioned command to wash one another's feet, preceded 
by the example of the Lord himself ; and when we further 
on find that such command was enjoined by Apostolic au- 
thority, as in 1 Tim. v: 9, 10, we have a right to avail our- 
selves of the tactics of our opponents and add the weight 
of a presumption from history to the argument as already 
developed. It is now only in this light that we appeal to 
patristic practice. It will serve to entrench the interpreta- 
tion which we have given of 1 Tim. v : 9, 10. 

Our reading of the testimony of history in favor of feet- 
washing as an ordinance convinces us of three things, viz : 

1. That feet-washing was practiced from the time of the 
Apostles as a religious ordinance. 

2. That such practice was based upon the Divine institu- 
tion and the practice of the Apostles. 

3. That the current interpretation of 1 Tim. v : 9, 10 was 
carried out in regulations with reference to the deaconesses of 
the early church, zuho were required religiously to wash the 
feet of female members of the church. 

In these views we are fully borne " out by the eminent 
Dr. Philip Schafr*. In his history of the Christian Church 
from the Apostles on he has occasion to note the practice 
of feet-washing. He endeavors to look upon it with the 
eyes of those early saints, and then testifies as follows : 
" This washing of feet seems to answer fully the concep- 
tion of a sacrament. There is the outward and visible 
sign — the washing of feet ; and the promise of salvation 
connected therewith ; and the express command of Christ — 
"I have given you an example," &c. 

In Chambers Encyclopedia we have the same testimony, 
also abundantly confirming our conclusions as above stated. 



106 THE EARLY PRACTICE OF FEET- WASHING. 

Under the word " Washing of feet " it is said : u The origin 
of this observance is extremely ancient. It is founded on 
the example and exhortation or precept of our Lord Jesus, 
John xiii : 5-14, and is traceable in the writings of Justin, 
Tertullian, Ambrose and Augustine. The writings of 
Augustine plainly show that this practice was in use in his 
day * * * * as a solemn institution of Christ." 

Justin, to whom reference is here made, was born A. D. 
89 and died A. D. 176. He is the first author after the 
Apostles, so far as we now know, in whose writings this 
subject is mentioned. We have not his words at our com- 
mand, and so can only state upon the authority of others 
that he speaks of the washing of feet as a religious rite. 
From this time on we shall find ample testimony to show 
its regular observance among the primitive churches. True, 
at some points it was rejected, as at Rome in the time of 
Ambrose (A. D. 340), and in other places its practice was 
prohibited by Councils, as in Spain in A. D. 306. 

The testimony of Dr. William Smith to the existence of 
the practice of washing feet in the early church is very 
emphatic. He says : " The principal ceremonial ablutions 
anciently used in the church * * * * are * * * 
the washing of the feet of the catechumens " {Did. Chr. A nt , 
Vol. II, p. 2030). Again : "The pedilavium or washing 
of the feet of the catechumens, of which some traces appear 
in the ritual of the early church " (Ibid, Vol. II, p. 1160). 
Again : " A peculiar custom prevailed in the early Gallican 
ritual, of a symbolical washing of the feet of the newly 
baptized, having reference to the action of our Lord re- 
corded in the Gospel of John xiii: 1-16" (Ibid, Vol. I, p. 
164.) The positive testimony to the fact that this washing 
was in imitation of Christ's act appears from the words of 
the ritual itself. The deacon or deaconess officiating is 



THE RACOVIAN CATECHISM. 107 

thus instructed : " While washing his feet thou shalt say, 
"I wash thy feet, as our Lord Jesus Christ did unto his 
disciples.' " 

It appears, therefore, that this rite was not always per- 
formed on the same occasion. Sometimes it was connect- 
ed with baptism, either preceding or following that ordi- 
nance, and at other times with the Communion. Some- 
times it had no connection with any other ordinance. It 
was on different occasions a matter of serious dispute at 
what time this rite was to be performed. We have no 
doubt that in the earliest times it preceded the Commun- 
ion ; but how long it held this place cannot now be deter- 
mined. 

The author of the Racovian Catechism, a work published 
in A. D. 1602, thus refers to the early practice of feet- 
washing : u That this holy custom was held in esteem and 
observed by the ancients appears from the writings of some 
of them. See Tertullian, lib. II, ad Uxorem ; Cyprian de 
Lotione Pedum. Ambrose {lib. Ill, de Sacram.), affirms 
that this holy custom was retained in the church of Milan 
down to his time, which Grotius likewise notices under 
John xiii : 15. So also Bernard, like these writers already 
named, regarded the washing of feet as a sacrament {Sermo 
de Coena). Moreover the XVIIth Council of Toledo, held 
in the year 694, commands that ' bishops and priests should 
wash the feet of the faithful at the celebration of the Lord's 
Supper, after the example of Christ ; adding, 'in order that 
the neglected custom may be again introduced." "Thus 
likewise Zacharias, bishop of Rome, in reply to the inquiry 
of Boniface, bishop of Mentz, whether it were allowable for 
holy woman, as was the custom among the men, to wash 
one another's feet at the Lord's Supper, and at other times, 
states : ' This is a command of our Lord.' 3 Of course, this 



108 TESTIMONY OF OKIGvEN. 

latter incident is further removed from Apostolic times 
than we care to go for evidence ; but it serves to show the 
.connection which history to a great extent establishes be- 
tween the washing of feet and the Communion. 

We have already seen that Justin, who lived at the close 
of the Apostolic era, testifies relative to the practice of 
feet- washing in his day. We shall now introduce several 
other ancient witnesses, already mentioned, and hear what 
they have to say. Origen, the recognized father of biblical 
criticism and exegesis, born A. D. 185, furnishes us some 
testimony of a negative character. His testimony is es- 
pecially valuable in its bearing on our interpretation of 1 
Tim. v : 9, 10. Dr. Smith (Diet Chr. Ant.) assures us 
that of the widows who were the objects of care to the 
church officers, some were formally enrolled in earliest 
times on the Katalogos as a distinct class or u ordo." It 
will be noted that Katalogos is the very word Paul uses in 
1 Tim. v: 9, 10. The formation of this "ordo," or class, 
or order, is attributed by the Clementine Homilies to the 
Apostle Peter (Eecogn. 6, 15, Horn. 11, 35). These Clem- 
entine Homilies are called the Homilies of the Apostle 
Peter, and are said to have been written by Clement of 
Eome, the fellow-laborer of Paul mentioned in Phil, iv : 
3. As early as the writing of the pastoral Epistles restric- 
tions were placed Lipon admission to this u ordo' 7 or class, 
and these restrictions are said to be formulated in 1 Tim. 
v : 9, 10. They were consistently and strictly maintained 
in the early church upon the authority of Paul, and are 
elaborately repeated in the Apostolical Constitutions. Now, 
that the condition as to the "washing of the saints' feet," 
as stated by Paul, was enforced literally in many places is 
evident from the fact that it was specifically made the duty 
of the members of this " ordo," as already seen, to perform 



TESTIMONY OF OEIGEN. 109 

this service. It also appears from the writings of Origen, 
as above instanced. Dr. Smith says : " Origen shews 
{in Joann, torn. 32, c. 7, vol. iv, p. 422) that stress was 
laid upon every part of them [these restrictions in 1 Tim. 
v : 9, 10] by arguing against too literal an interpretation of 
the clause 'if she have washed the saints' feet." Some 
undoubtedly favored literal washing of the saints' feet, 
otherwise there was no occasion to argue against it. Be- 
sides, it is not in evidence that this position of Origen was 
against the custom as an ordinance; but against the inter- 
pretation which it received. We know that on other points 
he gave great offense in his teachings by explaining, after 
the manner of the Midrash, known to him through the 
Jewish masters, allegorically and symbolically that Avhich 
in the Scriptures warred with the common human under- 
standing, or seemed repugnant in manner or matter {Lib. 
Univ. Knowl., vol. xi, p. 65). And so in this case he may 
have opposed the too literal interpretation of the rite, 
preferring the symbolical now so widely accepted. In any 
event, his words prove that a literal rite was not unknown 
in his time ; indeed, was widely known, or it would not 
have invoked the opposition (if it did) of so celebrated a 
bishop of the church. 

Origen on doctrinal points is, moreover, not a reliable 
leader. He was not only a liberalist ; but, on some points, 
a heretic. After what is called his " transition from un- 
conscious to conscious belief," he carefully examined all 
the different systems of human speculation which came 
within his reach. He adopted the principle "that we are 
not, under the pretence of piety, to pin our faith on that 
which is held by the multitude, and which, therefore, alone 
seems to stand on high authority ; but on that which re- 
sults through examination and logical conclusions from 



110 THE TESTIMONY OF AMBROSE. 

established and admitted truths." But this liberality of 
mind led him, while upholding all the ethical portions of 
the Bible, to reject a great deal of its supposed historical 
and legal contents for all purposes except as starting points 
for homiletics {Lib. Univ. Knowl., Origen). Upon such 
grounds he might oppose the ordinance of feet-washing ; 
but still, by his opposition, he gives evidence of its accept- 
ance by others in his time. It evidently was not well es- 
tablished at that time what came from the Apostles or 
what did not, for Origen claimed that infant baptism is a rite 
derived from them. He might believe feet- washing is not. 
We next come to Ambrose, born A. D. 340. He was 
bishop of Milan, in Italy, A. D. 374. In a work published 
in 1837 by Dr. John Henry Hopkins, entitled " The Church 
of Eome in her primitive Purity, compared with the Church 
of Eome of the present day," he refers to the testimony of 
Ambrose on feet- washing. He says : " In a discourse upon 
the sacred ceremony of washing feet, which was used in 
primitive days by many of the churches, and was greatly 
esteemed by Ambrose, he saith : ' We are not ignorant that 
the Church of Eome has not this custom ; this custom of 
washing feet she does not retain. Behold, therefore, per- 
haps she has declined on account of the multitude. There 
are some truly who endeavor to excuse her by the plea 
that this custom is not a sacred rite, but it is simply to be 
done to our guests as a mark of hospitality. But it is one 
thing to perform an act in token of humility, and another 
thing to perform it in order to sanctification. Hear there- 
fore how we prove this to be a sacred rite in order to sanc- 
tification. ' Unless I wash thy feet thou hast no part with 
me.' I do not thus speak that I may censure others, but 
that I may commend my office. I desire in all things 
(lawful) to follow the Roman church, but nevertheless we 



THE TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTINE. Ill 

men have sense also, and therefore what is more correctly 
practiced elsewhere we are more correct in practicing. In 
this respect we follow the Apostolic Peter himself ; we ad- 
here to the example of his devotion. For truly Peter the 
Apostle is our authority for this assertion. Peter himself 
saith : ' Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my 
head ' : ' {Ambrose on the Sacraments, book 3, chap. 1, sec. 5, 
Vol. 2, p. 362-3). Dr. Hopkins thus comments : " Not- 
withstanding the attachment of Ambrose to the Roman 
church (Romana ecclesia), he presumes to differ from her ; 
to retain and practice a sacred ceremony which she had 
cast away ; to argue against her openly in a public dis- 
course ; to charge her with declining after the multitude, 
and to prefer his own judgment and the custom of other 
churches on a point of sacred order, which he regarded as 
a means of sanctification. " 

Upon the testimony of Ambrose, as well as from the 
Gallican Sacramentary, from the early Gallican Missal, 
from the Gothic Missal and from other sources, we learn 
that at this period in the history of the church, and for 
some time prior, the rite of washing feet was religiously 
observed in Spain, in Italy, in Gaul and in the countries 
northward and eastward of Italy. But in Spain, as we 
have already stated, the rite was suppressed shortly after 
the time of Ambrose, by the canons of the Council of El- 
vira. And we learn the additional fact, that the women 
serving at the celebration of this ceremony did so as mem- 
bers of an u ordo" or class, upon the authority of Paul in 
1 Tim. v : 9, 10, and of Peter (true or false), according to 
the Clementine Homilies. Bingham in his Antiquities of 
the Christian Church assures us that "among those 
[churches] which always received it [the washing of feet] 
is the church of Milan," of which Ambrose was bishop. 



112 TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTINE. 

We have one more witness whose testimony we wish to 
produce. This is Augustine, the greatest of the Latin 
Fathers, born at Tagasti, in Numedia, November 13, A. 
D. 354. The Racovian catechism refers to him, among 
others, as testifying to the observance of this rite. So does 
Dr. William Smith in his Dictionary of Christian Antiqui- 
ties, as also Calvin, Lange, and others. He speaks of the 
ordinance in two of his Epistles. In the one addressed to 
Januarius (Epistle 118) he refers to the practice as then ex- 
isting, and also to the doubts entertained as to the proper 
day when the ceremony ought to be performed. In his 
Epistle 119 he speaks of an effort then making to "re- 
commend it by fixing it to some more sacred time, and 
yet distinguish it from the sacrament of baptism." These 
chose either " the third day of the octaves, or the octave 
after baptism itself, as most convenient for this purpose." 

In view of the historical evidence thus furnished, taken 
in connection with the plain command of Christ, we need 
not feel any surprise when the fact becomes clear that there 
is a constant stream of testimony to the observance of this 
expressive rite from the Apostles down to the present 
time. Even the Church of England, according to the 
statement in McClintock and Strongs Cyclopedia, "at first 
carried out the letter of the command." This work also is 
authority for the statement that in the early post- Apostolic 
times the command, " Ye ought to wash one another's 
feet," was observed not only after the spirit, but also after 
the letter. We need, therefore, not hesitate to re-affirm the 
propositions which we laid down upon the threshold of this 
inquiry into the post- Apostolic practice of feet-washing. 
What were then mere affirmations are now valid conclus- 
ions. Hence, we lay it down as matter of fact : 



THE CONCLUSION REACHED. 113 

1. That feet-washing was practiced from the time of the 
Apostles as a religious ordinance. 

2. That such practice was based upon the Divine institu- 
tion and the practice of the Apostles. 

3. That the current interpretation ofl Tim. v: 9, 10, was 
carried out in regulations with reference to the deaconesses 
of the early church, who were required religiously to wash 
the feet of female members of the church. 

If, therefore, we would maintain our consistency we 
cannot accept the. Communion as an ordinance of religion 
and reject the washing of the saints' feet. This is the po- 
sition occupied by the Quakers. Barclay, in his Apology 
for the True Christian Divinity, being an explanation and 
vindication of the principles and doctrines of the people 
called Quakers, argues at some length to show that feet- 
washing is as much an ordinance as the Communion ; and 
as the former is spiritualized by the majority of Christians, 
the latter should be also. That, therefore, the Christian 
world is inconsistent in retaining the literal Communion 
and rejecting feet- washing, while the Quakers, who believe 
in spiritualizing the washing of feet, to be consistent must 
reject all formal ritual observances. The error of the 
Quaker is in spiritualizing all ordinances; the error of 
others is in inconsistently spiritualizing one and retaining 
two in their literal sense. We prefer to apply the same 
principles of interpretation in all cases, and thus to follow 
the Lamb whitherseover he has led. 




Chapter V. 

Feet-washing has the Elements of an Ordinance. 

FTEB. weighing carefully, and irrespective of the 
testimony of Scripture, the historical evidence for 
the practice of feet-washing in post- Apostolic times, 
and comparing it with similar testimony in favor of certain 
other practices, candor compels any one to concede that 
the difference is in favor of the latter. The testimony for 
the washing of feet in the century following the death of 
the Apostles is comparatively meager, and yet enough is 
on record to make it evident that the rite was observed. 
We can trace it about as near to the Apostles as we can 
trine immersion, but the witnesses are not so numerous. 
If, therefore, we were to judge solely by the historical tes- 
timony we could no more receive feet-washing as an ordi- 
nance instituted by Christ than we can receive trine im- 
mersion. But, in respect of the Divine institution, these 
two rites do not stand on an equality according to the 
judgment of those who have no interest in this controversy. 
And it is exclusively on this ground that we receive the 
one and reject the other. 

The texts of Scripture found in John xiii furnish us 
with all the essential elements of an ordinance of religion. 

(114) 



ELEMENTS OF AN ORDINANCE. 115 

We find there the five elements which enter into all cere- 
monial rites. These are : 

1. Divine institution, or the command of Christ. 

2. The obligation of perpetual observance. 

3. A sensuous element indicated, such as water, bread 
and wine, etc. 

4. Formal ceremonial observance. 

5. An underlying truth upon which the rite rests, and 
which it symbolizes. 

If we find these elements anywhere in the New Testa- 
ment in connection with what Christians so generally re-, 
cognize as the ordinance of the Communion, we certainly 
find them more positively and conspicuously in connection 
with Christ's washing of his Disciples' feet (John xiii). 
Should we not discover ample indications in the literature 
of the post- Apostolic period that this rite was observed, 
the fact could be accounted for in two ways. 

1. Had the rite not been practiced, or had the possibility 
of the religious and ritual character of the service never 
forced itself upon the minds of Christian people, then no 
reference to it could be expected. ' These facts would fully 
account for the silence of the Apostolic Fathers on the 
subject, just as they account for the silence on the same 
subject by Episcopal or Presbyterian writers of the present 
period. But this has never been the case since, and it is 
not probable that it was then. In every age of the Christ- 
ain church from Justin Martyr down this rite has forced 
itself into public, recognition. How much more likely was 
it to do this in the post- Apostolic period when so many 
lived who had seen and conversed with the men whose feet 
Christ had washed, and to whom he had said : "I have 
given you an example that ye should do as I have done to 
you?" 



116 a Quaker's opinion on feet-washing-. 

2. A second and far more natural supposition would be, 
that there was no dispute about the ordinance and no doubt 
as to the obligation to observe it. This accords with later 
history. During the time of the Fathers of the Church the 
subject of feet- washing came up repeatedly, and principally 
because of certain questions pertaining to the manner and 
time of its observance, or the comparative dignity and sav- 
ing efficacy of the ordinance. This, too, is in harmony with 
the silence so uniformly observed in the writings of the 
Apostles and Evangelists touching the Communion. Paul 
was forced to allude to it in order to correct a serious abuse. 
Had it been properly observed no mention of it would be 
found in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Hence 
we read nothing about feet-washing until the time of Justin. 

Still, we concede the force of the objection, but we fall 
back upon the Divine institution, and in its presence all 
objections of this character become utterly harmless and 
untenable. It is not our purpose to discuss the question 
of Divine institution, as that would be foreign to the pur- 
pose of this investigation. But we shall furnish our 
readers with two opinions, from entirely distinct sources, 
bearing upon the question whether a Divine ordinance of 
religion is to be found in John xiii. We shall first pro- 
duce the views of an eminent English Quaker of the seven- 
teenth century. The Quakers do not observe ceremonial 
ordinances. Hence, this author presents arguments against 
the practice of "breaking bread," as he calls it, as a relig- 
ious service. He says, Papists affirm that there are seven 
Sacraments; Protestants that there are only two. But in 
his judgment Protestants are entirely inconsistent in limit- 
ing the number to two — baptism and the Communion. 
They should add another, and also observe the washing of 
the saints' feet. His views are as follows : 



a Quaker's opinion on feet-washing. 117 

" But to give a further evidence, how these consequences 
have not any bottom from the practice of that ceremony 
[the breaking of bread as done by Christ the night he was 
betrayed], nor from the words following: 'Do this,' &c, 
let us consider another of a like nature, as it is at length 
expressed by John, chap, xiii : 4-15. As to which, let it 
be observed, that John relates this passage to have been 
done at the same time with the other of breaking bread ; 
both being done the night of the Passover after supper. If 
we regard the narration of this, and the circumstances at- 
tending it, it was done with far more solemnity, and pre- 
scribed far more punctually and particularly than the for- 
mer. It is said only : 'As he was eating he took bread,' 
so that this would seem to be but an occasional business ; 
but here he rose up, he laid by his garments, he girded 
himself, he poured out the water, he washed their feet, he 
wiped them with the towel, he did this to all of them ; 
which are circumstances surely far more observable than 
those noted in the other. The former was a practice com- 
mon among the Jews, used by all masters of families upon 
that occasion ; but this, as to the manner, and person acting 
it, to wit : For the master to rise up and wash the feet of 
his servants and disciples, was more singular and observ- 
able. In the breaking of bread, and giving of wine, it is 
not pleaded by our adversaries, nor yet mentioned in the 
text, that he particularly put them into the hands of all ; 
but breaking it and blessing it, gave it the nearest, and so 
they from hand to hand ; but here it is mentioned that he 
washed not the feet of one or two, but of many. He saith 
not in the former, that if they do not eat of that bread, and 
drink of that wine, they should be prejudiced by it, but 
here he says expressly to Peter, than if he wash him not, 



118 a Quaker's opinion on feet-washing. 

lie hath no part with, him ; which being spoken upon Pe- 
ter's refusing to let him wash his feet, would seem to im- 
part no less, than not the countinuance onl y, but even the 
necessity of this ceremony. In the former he saith, as it 
were passingly : ' Do this in remembrance of me ;' but here 
he sitteth down again, he desires them to consider what he 
hath done, tells them positively, that as he hath done to 
them, so ought they to do to one another ; and yet again, 
he redoubles that precept by telling them he has given 
them an example, that they should do so likewise. If we 
respect the nature of the thing, it hath as much in it as 
either baptism or the breaking of bread ; seeing it is an 
outward element of a cleansing nature, applied to the out- 
ward man, by the command and example of Christ, to sig- 
nify an inward purifying. 

"I would willingly propose this seriously to them who 
will be pleased to make use of that reason and under- 
standing that God hath given them, and not be imposed 
upon, nor abased by the custom and tradition of others : 
Whether this ceremony, if we respect either the time it was 
appointed in, or the circumstances wherewith it was per- 
formed, or the command enjoining the use of it, hath not 
as much to recommend it for a standing ordinance of the 
Gospel, as either water baptism, or bread and wine, or any 
other of that kind ? I wonder then what reason Papists 
can give, why they have not numbered it among their sac- 
raments, except merely voluntas ecclesice and traditio Pa- 
trum. But if they say that it is used among them, in that 
the Pope, and some other persons among them, used to do 
it once a year to some poor people ; I would willingly 
know what reason they have why this should not be ex- 
tended to all, as well as that of the Eucharist, as they term 



THE ACCEPTANCE OF FEET- WASHING. 119 

it; or whence it appears from the text, that, 'Do this in 
remembrance of me,' should be interpreted that the bread 
and wine were every day to be taken by all priests, or the 
bread every day, or every week, by the people ; and that 
that other command of Christ : ' Ye ought to do as I have 
done to yon, 7 is only to be understood of the Pope, or some 
other persons, to be done only to a few, and that once a 
year. [The answer is, their Councils prohibited the wash- 
ing of feet.] Surely there can be no other reason for this 
difference assigned from the text. And as to Protes- 
tants, who use not this ceremony at all, if they will but 
open their eyes, they will see how that by custom and tra- 
dition they are abused in this matter, as were their fathers 
in divers Popish traditions. For if we look into the plain 
Scripture, what can be thence inferred to urge the one, 
which may not be likewise pleaded for the other ; or for 
laying aside the one, which may not be likewise said 
against the continuance of the other ? If they say that 
the former, of washing the feet, was only a ceremony ; what 
have they whence they can show that the breaking of 
bread is more ? If they say, that the former was only a 
sign of humility ; what have they to prove that this was 
more ? If they say that one was only for a time, and was 
no evangelical ordinance ; what hath this to make it such, 
that the other wanted! Surely there is no way of reason 
to evade this ; neither can anything be alleged that the 
one should cease and not the other ; or the one continue, 
and not the other, but the mere opinion of the afhrmer ; 
which by custom, education and tradition, hath begotten 
in the hearts of people a greater reverence for and esteem of, 
the one than the other ; which if it had fallen out to be as 
much recommended to us by tradition, would no doubt 



120 THE ACCEPTANCE OF FEET- WASHING. 

have been as tenaciously pleaded for as haying no less 
foundation in Scripture. But since the former, to wit : 
The washing of one another's feet, is justly laid aside, as 
not binding upon Christians, so ought also the other for 
the same reason " (Barclay's Apology, published A. D. 1675, 
pp. 433-436). 





Chapter VI. 
Dr. William Bohmer on Feet-washing. 

E have seen how an unbiased Quaker regards the 
Scriptural authority for feet-washing in contrast 

with the same authority for the Communion and 
baptism. Such testimony is extremely valuable, and 
should have much more weight than the most learned and 
convincing argument from an interested" party. The 
Quaker, who rejects all formal ordinances, is in the best 
possible position to judge equitably of the claims of feet- 
washing to the rank and dignity of an ordinance of religion. 
And he decides without hesitation, and in the most positive 
terms, that no other rite can be more strongly supported in 
God's word than this commonly rejected one. 

We shall now produce a witness whose religious faith 
differs widely from that of the Quaker, but who has care- 
fully and critically examined the claims of feet-washing to 
be classed among the Christian ordinances. This writer is 
Dr. William Bohmer, of Breslau, Prussia. In a learned 
article, published in the Theologische Studien unci Kritiken, 
A. D. 1850, p. 829-842, he considers " Feet-washing Ac- 
cording to its Sacramental Dignity. 11 The Christian Review 

(121) 



122 THE SACRAMENT OF "RENAME." 

speaks of the journal from which this article is taken as 
"beyond all doubt the most learned theological journal in 
the world." Dr. Bohmer speaks exclusively as a critical 
scholar, and not as a partisan or an apologist ; and his con- 
clusions merit the most serious consideration. We quote 
him in full, as follows : 

"When the question is to understand the Protestant 
Church doctrine on the number of the Christian sacraments, 
the opinions of individual church teachers must not be re- 
garded, even in the case that the last should be reformers. 
Individual church teachers do not build the Protestant 
Church. Opinions expressed by individual church teach- 
ers have not always been publicly sanctioned by the church. 
Its doctrine on the number of the sacraments is only to be 
determined from the Scriptures, which the church has ac- 
knowledged through the symbols. What pertains to the 
Eeformed side of the Protestant Church, baptism and the 
Lord's supper, are represented in the twenty -fifth article of 
the Anglican Church as the sacraments instituted by Christ. 
If we look on the Lutheran side of that church there are, 
it is true, three sacraments set down in the Apology of the 
Augsburg Confession, p. 200 and p. 167 ; the Lutheran Con- 
fession of Faith, Rechenberg's edition, consisting of bap- 
tism, the Lord's supper, and absolution, which last ap- 
pears as the sacrifice of Rename (Busze). On p. 200 we 
find offered as reason for this representation, that the three 
named acts have for themselves a divine command, and a 
promise of grace proper to the New Testament. The mind, 
it is said, must accept with certainty that God in baptism, 
the taking of the Lord's body, in absolution, does really 
for Christ's sake forgive them [their sins]. Nevertheless, 
it is contended in the Larger Catechism, p. 549 : ' Baptism 
embraces, as well through its power as through its signifi- 



THE MATTER OF AN ORDINANCE. 123 

cation, also, the sacrament which men are accustomed to 
call Eename. Properly. Eename is nothing else than bap- 
tism, or the exercise of it. How then can Eename be 
otherwise defined than thus : That it is a full-drawn attack 
with a strong spirit on the old man in behalf of curbing 
his passions, and an embracing of the new life ? He who 
lives in Eename, moves himself in baptism which not 
only signifies this new life, but also works, begins, exer- 
cises. For in baptism is given to candidates the grace, the 
spirit and the power to bend the old man, that the new 
may go forth and be strengthened.' These reasons of the 
catechism, and the circumstance that the reforming weight 
of its author, Luther, was considerably more in the Luth- 
eran Church than the reforming weight of the author of 
the Apology, Milanthon's, make it clear why this Church 
really abandoned the sacramental dignity of Eename, and 
even as the Eeformed Association, only set down baptism 
and the Lord's supper as sacraments. 

" That the Protestant Church, according to its Eeformed 
and Lutheran side, has rejected Eename as a sacrament, de- 
serves by no means any blame. Eename, as a sacrament, 
lacks an essential element of a sacrament — the sensuous 
matter [der Sinnliche stiff"]. It is true the Council of Trent, 
in the fourteenth session, chap, hi, is of the opinion that 
the exercises of the penitent themselves, namely, contrition, 
confession and satisfaction, are, as it were, the matter of 
the sacrament of Eename. But the opinion is strange, as 
these exercises, according to their preponderating spiritual 
nature, are not proper to form the sensuous matter *of a 
sacrament. The Council itself seems to have found this 
work so, for it leaves those exercises to be the ' quasi 
materia huius sacramentV Let the Eoman Catechism 
(Pars II, chap, v, qst. 14) wish to know every kind of 



124 THE MATTER OF AN ORDINANCE. 

satisfaction on prayer, fasting and alms reduced by the 
ministers ! Also, prayer and fasting are, according to their 
nature, such a self-abstraction of the material that a 
thoughtful mind cannot reckon either to be the L quasi 
materia ' of a sacrament [that which comes in place of the 
sensuous element]. Moreover, as that opinion of the Coun- 
cil finds no foundation in the word of God, the Holy 
Scriptures, it must not be admitted, as the word of Grod is 
the product of a thoughtful, yea, divine mind. 

" Farther, the Protestant Church, in the view that it has 
represented baptism and the Lord's supper as sacraments, 
deserves, by no means, any blame. 

" Under a sacrament we must imagine to ourselves a holy 
ceremony, instituted immediately or mediately by Christ, 
in which are observable a sensuous matter and spiritual 
blessings in such a manner that these blessings, susceptible 
personalities, are not simply represented, but communicated 
through the appropriation of the sensuous matter. Every 
other conception of a sacrament is insufficient, because it 
does not answer to the nature of a sacrament. In baptism 
and the Lord's supper, however, all the elements of a sacra- 
ment appear. Baptism and the Lord's supper are, accord- 
ing to Matt, xxviii: 19; xxvi: 26 et seq., instituted by 
Christ. Both have in the water, and in the bread, with 
which is joined the wine of the cup (Matt, xxvi: 26 et seq.) 
their sensuous matter. Forgiveness of sins and the Holy 
Spirit are spiritual blessings which belong to baptism (Acts 
ii : 28). The body and blood of Jesus (Matt, xxvi : 26-28, 
q. d.* the divine Logos, who in Jesus took up the body and 
blood in the oneness with himself, John i: 14) constitute 
the spiritual blessings of the Lord's supper. At length 
those adults who have embraced the Christian faith (Col. 
ii: 12), in that they are immersed in the baptismal water, 



THE PKOTESTAOT CHUKCH TO BLAME. 125 

receive forgiveness of sin and the Holy Spirit (Acts ii : 38), 
the rather in part, as the baptismal water is united with 
God's word (Eph. v: 26). And those personalities who, 
through self-examination (1 Cor. xi : 28j, have learned that 
they are in a worthy frame of mind, become translated into 
communion with the body and blood of the Lord, q. d., 
with the divine Logos, who pervades the body and blood ; 
in this that they partake of the elements of the Lord's sup- 
per, namely bread and wine blessed through the word of 
God(l Cor. x: 16). 

"On the other hand, the Protestant Church must be 
blamed in the reference that it has only determined baptism 
and the Lord's supper as sacraments. The determination 
contains an injustice against the feet- washing of Christ, as 
it is described at large in John xiii. According to the 
description, sacramental dignity belongs also to Feet-wash- 
ing. All the elements of a sacrament present themselves 
sufficiently clear to an unbiased mind. 

" First. Feet- washing took its origin immediately from 
Christ. Although knowing that the Father had given all 
things into his hands, and that as he came from Grocl so he 
would again return to him, Christ arose from table before he 
ate with his Disciples that well-known and significant meal 
before his last Passover (John xiii: 1, 2, 26). After he 
had laid aside his outer garments and had girded himself 
with a towel (leintuche), he poured water into a wash-basin 
and began to wash his Disciples' feet and wipe them with 
a towel. Let us suppose, however, that Christ had washed 
his Disciples' feet through another person. This circum- 
stance would have injured the sacramental dignity of feet- 
washing no more than the fact that he, being engaged in 
the fulfillment of his prophetic work, had baptized other 



126 FEET-WASHING AND BAPTISM. 

persons through his Disciples (John iv : 1, 2), injured the 
sacramental dignity of baptism. 

" Secondly. Feet- washing possesses, like baptism, in the 
water the sensuous matter, which is necessary to a sacra- 
ment, because this shall both exert an influence on the 
sensuous side of man and contribute to the sanctification 
of the same. The sensuous matter of feet- washing recom- 
mends itself on account of its simplicity. It renders it 
possible to practice feet- washing as a sacrament in all cli- 
mates. And when thereat the arrangement is made that 
men wash the feet of men, and women of women, Christian 
shamefacedness is preserved in a pleasing manner. 

" Thirdly. That spiritual blessings are by no means 
wanting is clear from the context in the xiiith of John's 
Gospel. As Jesus began to wash the Disciples' feet he also 
came to Peter. As feet- washing, as a servile work, ac- 
cording to the opinion of this Apostle, did not become 
Jesus the Lord, so Peter, full of astonishment at his con- 
duct, started the question : ' Lord, dost thou wash my feet ?' 
And as Jesus replied, what he was doing that Peter knew 
not then, yet he would understand it thereafter ; then this 
one who was prevented from taking to heart properly that 
reply through natural passionateness, proceeded with the 
decisive declaration that Jesus should never wash his feet. 
In consequence of such a contradiction, Jesus uttered with 
greater precision than he had yet done : ' If I wash thee 
not thou hast no part with me; q. d, no lot in the union 
with me (vs. 6-8). Do we change tins thoroughly negative 
assertion into an affirmative in such a manner that no real 
point is lost ? And Jesus gives the opposing Apostle to 
understand, if I wash your feet (which only could have 
taken place in the event that that Apostle humbled him- 
self before the Lord) thou hast a part with me, a lot in the 



MORAL CLEANSING IN FEET-WASHING. 127 

union with me. This spiritual union of himself with the 
Lord, which is brought about through feet- washing, forms one 
of those spiritual blessings which hang together in such a 
manner in feet-washing that they essentially help this cer- 
emony to sacramental dignity. Besides one other, we also 
obtain from the context of the Gospel the wished-for light. 
In the innermost depth of his personality, moved by the 
assertion of the Lord in question, Peter declares according 
to his personal disposition, by which the leap from one ex- 
treme into the other was only too natural : The Lord might 
not only wash his feet, but also his hands and his head! 
Hereupon Jesus answered: He that has once washed 
(namely, as to his whole body) has need of nothing farther 
than this, that he wash his feet (since the feet only have 
become soiled through this, that he who is washed has again 
walked on the earth ; perhaps has taken a journey). He 
is (without respect to his feet) wholly clean. In this illus- 
tration of Jesus an imaginary thought undoubtedly im- 
presses itself upon the mind, but at the bottom of the 
imaginary thought lies the real : The man who has made 
to himself a moral-pious mind, and is overwhelmed in it, 
a. a 1 ., is altogether clean ; it is only necessary for him to be 
cleansed in reference to single spots with which his per- 
sonality is yet infected. Without respecting these single 
spots, he is, what respects the moral-pious side wholly 
clean, as in verse 10. Accordingly this belongs to the 
spiritual blessings which are united through the glorious 
arrangement of Jesus at feet- washing, wherewith it becomes 
a Sacrament, that he whose feet are washed is cleansed in ref- 
erence to certain spots, with which his pervaded spirit is yet 
furnished, by a moral-pious mind. How well this blessing 
agrees with the one which we above reckoned as a spirit- 
ual blessing of the ceremony in question is clear from the 



128 Christ's feet- washing a sacramental act. 

circumstances that there is no real union of the spirit of 
man with Christ without that it exerts a beneficial influ- 
ence upon the gradual cleansing of the spirit from its spots. 

" Fourthly. To the water, which constitutes the sensuous 
matter of feet- washing, the word of God is united, which 
both testifies of Christ and is able to improve the sus- 
ceptible spirit (John xiii: 8-10). The fact is the more 
comprehensible that the union of the spirit with Christ, 
and also the cleansing of the spirit from the filth of sin yet 
adhering to it, is brought about through the water. This 
appearance would only then be incomprehensible if the 
word of God were not joined to the water, and the spirit 
would not be susceptible to the influence of the word, con- 
sequently not believing. 

" Notwithstanding that according to the above explana- 
tion all the elements of a Christian sacrament appear in the 
feet- washing of Christ, theologians of modern times have 
brought forward many arguments against the sacramental 
dignity of this beautiful religious practice. Nevertheless, 
an unprejudiced critic can prove without difficulty that 
these arguments cannot deprive the practice of that its own 
dignity. 'The act of feet- washing,' say the theologians, 
' was symbolical, to enjoin the duty of Christian love and 
serviceableness (according to oriental custom) on his (i e., 
Christ's) Disciples.' Now, with regard to John xiii: 12, et 
seq., we would not wish to deny such a symbolical reference 
of the act of Christ. Indeed, he says, emphatically, if he, 
although he was the Lord and Teacher of his Disciples, 
washed their feet as they should also wash one another's 
feet, he gave them therewith an example to be imitated 
{hupodeigma, see on the import of the word James v : 10). 
We might here also adduce the weighty text, Luke xxii: 
26, 27, in which, although nothing of feet- washing as an 



THE APOSTLES AOT) FEET-WASHING. 129 

act of Christ strikes the eye, yet the discourse is of that 
serving spirit in which Christ, according to John's Gospel, 
had washed the Disciples' feet. But this, that the act in 
question was symbolical, and to enjoin the duty of Chris- 
tian love and serviceableness, does surely in no way ex- 
clude the sacramental dignity of this act. Much more that 
symbolical reference of the act and this sacramental charac- 
ter stand in close connection with each other. As Christ 
in that he should wash his Disciples' feet, and in this way 
should show Christian love and serviceableness; so the 
Disciples, while Christ was washing their feet, could obtain 
through this, by a supposed believing surrender to Christ, 
a lot in the spiritual union with him, and the cleansing of 
single spots which adhered to them, q. d, the res sacra- 
menti. He who conceives of the act in question only as a 
symbolical act, and not at the same time as a sacramental, 
entangles himself in a one-sidedness by which that act does 
not receive its full just due. 

u It is true the theologians named further present the 
objection that the act was also 'never ordained by the 
Apostles as a law for all Christians and all times.' Yet 
the justness of this objection is by no means beyond all 
'doubt. Let the New Testament Scriptures not relate that 
the Apostles have ordained feet-washing as a law for all 
Christians and all times ; yet this want does not necessarily 
exclude that the Apostles left verbally such an ordinance, 
for there is also much that Jesus really did that has not 
been recorded in the Apostolic Scriptures (John xxi : 25). 
That the Apostles, with respect to feet-washing, which 
Christ, according to John xiii : 14, 15, gave them for a pat- 
tern, left the ordinance in question, is the more probable, as 
they were required by Jesus (Matt, xxviii : 20) to teach all 
nations all things which he had commanded them. And the 
9 



130 THE APOSTLES AND FEET-WASHING. 

Apostles bore too great honor in their breasts toward their 
Lord and Teacher as that they would not have obeyed his 
commands. This probability finds a point of support in 
the circumstance that the Apostle of the Gentiles (1 Tim. 
v), as one of the many conditions under which a widow 
should be regarded worthy of aid through Christian church 
gifts, places this, that the widows have washed the feet of 
saints, q. d., of the Christians consecrated to God (1 Tim. 
v: 9, 10). The feet- washing of the widow is regarded here 
as a beautiful and good work among others ; but this char- 
acteristic of feet- washing does certainly not necessarily ex- 
clude that it was at the same time a religious (Gottesdien- 
siliche) and sacramental act. Besides, feet-washing has 
been a custom in very many churches which have flour- 
ished since the Apostles, in Milan and in Africa, as is 
learned from the memorials of Christian antiquity. 

" However, let us once suppose feet- washing was never 
enjoined by the Apostles as a law for all Christians and all 
times. It is still an irrefutable fact that feet- washing was 
ordained as a sacrament and as an emblematical act by 
Christ for the Apostles. But as everything that was or- 
dained for the Apostles is also ordained for all Christians 
of all times (Matt, at the mentioned place), so it belongs to 
all Christians of all times to hold fast this holy duty, feet- 
washing, as such an act even as it is described by us ; and 
where for insufficient reasons it has not been established, 
there to introduce it. 

" Olshausen says with respect' to the words of Christ on 
the act in question, that ' they are the spirit and life, and 
must be received with spirit and life. 7 But Olshausen 
arbitrarily overlooks how the words of the Lord in John 
xiii : 10-15 are in such a manner spirit and life that they 
at the same time ordain the external performance of feet- 



INTERNAL NECESSITY FOR THREE ORDINANCES. 131 

washing as a religious duty. According to this the words 
are to be received entirely with spirit and life, but at the 
same time so that the external performance of feet-washing, 
of which as a religious duty the words also treat, be brought 
about. 

u It is true many theologians have attempted to prove 
the internal necessity of only l two sacraments to embrace 
the whole life of a Christian church,' which are baptism 
and the Lord's supper. And had the attempt succeeded, 
the sacrament of feet- washing would be superfluous for the 
church, notwithstanding that feet- washing also is an em- 
blematical moral act. But the attempt has failed, and on 
that account the sacrament of feet- washing dare not be set 
down as superfluous. So Marheineke attempts to base 
this necessity of only two sacraments by these remarks : 
' Each one must in his natural life be a member of the 
church and become so more and more. He must once for 
always be consecrated to Grod, and as a natural plant be 
transplanted out of the bad soil of the earth into the good 
ground and soil of the kingdom of heaven, and then be 
consecrated always anew in order to grow in Christ, i. e., 
in faith and love.' Now we grant entirely to Marheineke 
that these remarks are right in themselves. We further 
grant that the necessity of baptism bases itself on this, that 
each one who is concerned about the ' truth, morality and 
happiness,' to be found in the church must, in his natural 
life, be a member of the church, once for always be conse- 
crated to God, and like a natural plant be transplanted out 
of the bad soil of the earth into the divine ground and soil 
of the kingdom of heaven, a. d, the church. 

"However, Marheineke is, in our judgment, in error in 
that he represents as necessary for that only the sacrament 
of the Lord's supper, because each one must also become 



132 FEET- WASHING AND CHRISTIAN GROWTH. 

more and more a member of the church, and always be 
consecrated anew in order to grow in Christ, £. e., in faith 
and love : For likewise the sacrament of feet- washing has 
even for this its internal necessity. Indeed, each one is a 
personality, a unit of understanding, of free will and of 
feeling. Yet the more different the personalities of the 
members of the church are shaped by every identity of the 
being (wesens) of the personalities, the more is it necessary 
that more and, indeed, different sacraments be at hand, 
through the believing appropriation of which the members 
of the church become more and more members of the 
church and always become consecrated anew to God in be- 
half of the growth in question. The Lord's supper alone 
is, even if it be frequently repeated, not sufficient for the 
attainment of this pious and moral end, because of the dif- 
ference which shows itself in the personalities of the mem- 
bers of the church. Therefore the feet- washing of Christ 
as such a sacrament was adjoined to the Lord's supper by 
the Holy Scriptures, through the performance of which 
that end can be secured, in that those Christians whose 
feet are washed obtain lot in the union with Christ, in 
which God is as a Father, and are freed from single spots, 
with which Christians are disfigured. 

"That the Protestant Church has not acknowledged the 
feet-washing of Christ as a sacrament is an offense against 
the Holy Scriptures, which surprises the more as this Church 
discovers the origin of its Christianity, and the only rule 
of conduct of its faith and practices, in the Holy Scriptures. 
The Church can, to some extent, make amends for its only 
offense through this, that it gives the feet-washing of Christ 
fall justice as it is represented in the Scriptures, q. d., ac- 
knowledge its sacramental dignity" 

The foregoing translation is the work of one of our in- 



THE ECHO OF CHRIST'S VOICE HEARD. 133 

timate personal friends of earlier years, a scholar and a con- 
scientious Christian gentleman, since deceased. For the 
integrity of the translator we can vouch unhesitatingly ; 
but the translation as here given is manifestly a defective 
one, owing either to the compositors who put it in type 
some seventeen years ago, or to the translator's imperfect 
knowledge of the German language. But the author's 
ideas are given in the main with clearness and force. 

Of the critical correctness of Dr. Bohmer's position there 
can be little reasonable doubt. For when the three ordi- 
nances of baptism, feet- washing and the Communion are 
compared in the basis of principles upon which they stand 
no sound criticism can reject one without invalidating the 
other. And it is for this invincible reason that we accept 
the three as divinely instituted ordinances of the Christian 
church. The difference, then, between trine immersion 
and feet-washing is manifest. In the former case we ascend 
the stream of history to the time of Tertullian. Beyond 
that there are no authentic and positive traces of it. We 
stand upon some towering mountain top and listen, turn- 
ing our inquiring eyes toward the hills among which echoed 
the voice of the great Teacher, intent on catching the faint- 
est iteration of the command to practice a threefold bap- 
tism. But silence, profound and oppressive, everywhere 
reigns. Our inquiry is changed. We would know 
whether the washing of the saints' feet as a ritual, sym- 
bolical, religious act should be practiced. Again we go up 
the stream of history until we reach a point but little nearer 
the period in which Christ lived and taught than where 
we stood before. A waste of nearly a century lies between 
us and the Apostolic church, and beyond which Christ 
stands. Let us listen again ! There are voices in the air ! 
They speak of "washing the saints feet." They clearly 



134 THE ECHO OF CHEIST'S VOICE HEAED. 

say : " Ye ought to do it " ; "ye should do as I have done." 
Whence come they ? Whose are these voices ? We have 
heard them before ! We know them. Down the ages rings 
the voice of the Lord Jesus : "I have given you an exam- 
ple that ye should do as I have done to you, for if I, your 
Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to 
wash one another's feet." And this voice is increased in 
volume by that of Paul. We are satisfied ! We will cheer- 
fully do what Jesus has said we " ought" to do. When 
he commands, our hearts are silent and submissive. Hence, 
over this beautiful and expressive, service we pronounce 
the words: An oedinance of the Lord's own insti- 
tution. 




PART III. 

THE LOVE-FEAST AND THE COMMUNION. 



Chapter I. 

The Questions Stated. 

T is one of the singular facts of ecclesiastical history 
that around the one ordinance above all others which 
our Lord instituted as a memorial of his marvelous love, 
the fiercest and most prolonged contentions should have 
taken place. What is commonly known as the Lord's 
Supper has been the subject of controversy in nearly all 
ages of the Christian church ; and the questions in dispute 
are still as far as ever from being definitely and satisfact- 
orily settled. Sometimes, too, the questions at issue re- 
late not so much to the ordinance itself as to forms and ob- 
servances connected therewith. Among several Churches 
it is customary to eat a full meal in connection with the 
Communion and immediately preceding it. For this prac- 
tice, it is claimed, there is divine authority, so that it is re- 
garded as being equally obligatory to eat the full meal and 
to break bread in the Communion. 

Where the Church of God comes in contact with people 
holding the view here indicated it is but natural that in- 
quiries should arise touching the reasons which govern us 
in the rejection of this full meal as a religious institution. 
With them we teach the doctrine of the immersion of be- 

(137) 



138 THE QUESTIONS STATED. 

lievers as constituting Christian baptism, dissenting only 
from the threefold mode in which by them the baptism is 
administered. We observe the Communion of the body 
and the blood of Christ, as they do, without any attempt 
at an elucidation of this Christian mystery beyond what 
it pleased the great Author and Head of the church him- 
self to give ; and we can join with them in teaching and 
practicing the most expressive and significant of all the 
acknowledged Christian ordinances, when fully understood, 
as witnessed in the washing of the saints' feet. Naturally 
enough the question is repeatedly suggested and pressed 
upon us for an answer : Why do you not eat a full meal 
before, and in connection with, the Communion ? In the 
view of those who solicit an answer to this question there 
seem to be ample reasons for pressing it upon us. We 
do not hesitate to affirm our determination to accept every 
institution and to conform to every precept which emanated 
from Christ. We do not deem it amiss to censure those 
who either reject or modify divine ordinances, or who teach 
and practice that which has no divine warrant. But those 
who ask us for a reason for omitting the full meal in con- 
nection with the Communion believe that it is a divine in- 
stitution ; that Christ not only partook with his Disciples 
of a full meal on the night when he instituted the Com- 
munion, but that it was a special meal ordered to* be pre- 
pared for the occasion, and subsequently observed in obe- 
dience to his will. This full meal they claim is the Lord's 
Supper, while the breaking of bread and the cup which 
follow constitute the Communion. 

In view of these facts it would naturally appear clear to 
them that we err in not eating the full meal before we par- 
take of the Communion. Also that this assumed error is 
the more aggravated since we insist so positively upon 



THE QUESTIONS STATED. 139 

doing all that Christ has enjoined upon the church ; and 
claim that it is the highest duty of the follower of Jesus to 
seek to know his will and then unfalteringly to do it. And 
none the less does this alleged neglect of a Divine institu- 
tion seem unpardonable since we have received the truth 
with reference to what might with almost singular appro 
priateness be called The Lost Ordinance of the Christian 
church — the rite of washing the saints' feet. But how- 
ever others may view the matter, to us it is explicable in 
the most natural manner. Whether right or wrong, our 
action in reference to this alleged Divine institution is gov- 
erned by our invariable rule in all similar cases. What 
we believe to be the command of the Great Head of the 
church, touching rites and ceremonies, we observe, no mat- 
ter what it is, or how little it may commend itself to nat- 
ural human reason ; and nothing else do we observe. 

The Communion being so commonly called the Lord's 
Supper, it is supposed not infrequently that this has con- 
tributed to the neglect of the full meal. With others we 
are charged with this confusion of names. It is claimed 
that the bread and wine are not the Lord's Supper, and 
that this term originally and properly designated the full 
meal partaken of immediately preceding the breaking of 
the bread and the cup. When the full meal was dispensed 
with, which it is asserted was the Lord's Supper, this name 
was retained to designate the Communion ; and thus we do 
not eat the Lord's Supper at all, but partake simply of the 
Communion which we have called the Lord's Supper. One 
Divine institution has been lost, and its name has been ap- 
plied indiscriminately with others to another Divine insti- 
tution. It is at once apparent, therefore, that this is not a 
mere question of names, but of an institution which, it is 
claimed, we reject. The question which we hence propos 



140 THE QUESTIONS STATED. 

to discuss is this: "Is the Love-feast, which by some is 
called the Lord's Supper, a Divine institution to be per- 
petually observed by the Church ?" As a question of 
minor importance we will also seek to justify the applica- 
tion of the name Lord's Supper to the Communion. 

That there may be no confusion of terms we will here 
state, that, throughout this discussion, we shall use the name 
Agape for the full meal and Communion for the bread and 
the cup, which are more commonly called the Lord's Sup- 
per. In doing this we have no object in view save clear- 
ness in our statements and our reasonings. By common 
consent Communion is a suitable and proper name for the 
service and ordinance to which we here apply it. We are 
most generally in the habit of calling it the Lord's Supper, 
but as those who hold the views which we feel obliged to 
antagonize apply that name to the full meal, our use of it 
here to designate what they call the Communion might oc- 
casion confusion. 

Having for the sake of clearness surrendered the name 
most familiar among us for the Communion, it cannot be 
objected that we are dealing unfairly by obliging the other 
side to accept temporarily a name which antiquity so fully 
justifies us in giving to the full meal which they claim to 
be the Lord's Supper. Hence without prejudice to the 
interests of either party to this controversy we shall, as 
above stated, call the full meal which certain churches eat 
in connection with breaking of bread and the cup Agape 
and the bread and wine we shall call the Communion. Let 
none lose sight of this nomenclature, nor forget that no 
controversial significance is to be attached to the terms 
which we have selected to designate these different things. 
Love-feast, the term which occurs on the title page, is only 
the translation of the Greek Agape. 



THE QUESTIONS STATED. 141 

In the discussion of this question our supreme aim shall 
be to ascertain the will of the Lord. It is true that we, as 
a people, have an established practice touching this matter. 
From the first down to the present time we have invariably 
held it to be our duty to commemorate the sufferings and 
death of the Lord Jesus in the ordinance of the Commun- 
ion ; and have as invariably and generally held that the 
Agape is not a divine institution, and so have not observed 
it. Our individual faith is perfectly in harmony with this 
practice ; and though we have on several occasions investi- 
gated the subject with much care, and have now again gone 
over the whole ground with conscientious painstaking, our 
faith remains unshaken in the correctness of our position. 
But, as a constant check to our own mind, and the better 
to prepare our readers for what they will find in this dis- 
cussion, we place this guiding principle at the very begin- 
ning of our investigation : That the divine will, as found 
in the Scriptures, must be our supreme rule. 

The Scriptures are our only rule of faith and practice, 
so that whatever is not found therein, nor may be proved 
thereby, cannot be required of us. If we can find the 
Agape as a divine institution in the word of God then our 
past faith and practice will have to go for nothing, and we 
shall adopt what hitherto we have rejected. But in our 
discussion of the subject we shall not confine ourself wholly 
to the Scriptures, as it may be profitable to follow the his- 
tory and examine the literature of the Agape as we find it 
in the post- Apostolic times. The propriety of doing so is 
fully sustained by the most learned men on other subjects ; 
and besides, in doing so we are but following our oppo- 
nents into fields whither they have long since preceded us. 

In developing this subject we propose the following 
order of discussion : 



142 THE QUESTIONS STATED. 

I. The Communion, consisting of "the bread which we 
break" and "the cup of blessing which we bless" is an ac- 
cepted and acknoiuledged institution of the Lord, Jesus to be 
perpetually observed by the church to the end of time. 

II. The Agape in sacred and ecclesiastical history. 

Ill Is there divine authority for the perpetual observance 
of the Agape as a religious ordinance ? 

IV. The proper name whereby to designate the Com- 
munion. 

Under these four heads it now seems to us we can very 
properly arrange everything that we need to say on the 
general subject before us. And the order of topics is, to 
our mind, one which, if not the best in itself, will conduce 
to clearness of argumentation and to a right apprehension 
of the whole subject. These are requisites which are to 
be valued above any apparent demands of logical order. 






Chapter II. 

The Communion a Divine Institution Complete in Itself. 

'N" the concluding paragraph, of Chapter I, we gave the 
order in which we proposed to discuss our subject. 
According to that order the first point to claim our 
attention is thus stated : 

I The Communion, consisting of u the bread which we 
break" and u the cup of blessing which we bless" is an ac- 
cepted and acknowledged institution of the Lord Jesus to be 
perpetually observed by the church to the end of time. 

Were we discussing this question by itself, and not in 
view of the fact that the Agape is also claimed to be a di- 
vine institution, it would be necessary neither to adduce 
proof of this proposition, nor to explain and elucidate it. 
Save among Roman Catholics and Quakers our proposition 
is unchallenged. The former would eliminate the cup from 
the Communion, and the latter would reject the ordinance 
entirely. The doctrine of what is called Concomitance, ac- 
cording to which the bread used in the Communion is 
changed unto the flesh and blood of our Lord, obviates the 
necessity of communing in both elements. It is the most 
ultra doctrine of Transubstantiation, and is held and prac- 
ticed only by the Catholic church. 

(143) 



144 THE COMMUNION A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 

The Quakers, as is well-known, do not believe in ritual 
institutions at all. They regard them in a spiritual light. 
They teach that "the baptism that now saves is inward 
and spiritual ; that true Christians are ' baptized by one 
Spirit into one body,' " and that there is now no other bap- 
tism. And respecting the Communion of the body and 
blood of our Lord, they believe it to be "a real participa- 
tion of the divine nature through faith in him and obe- 
dience to the power of the Holy Ghost." 

With these, however, we are not concerned in this dis- 
cussion. We are, in various ways, challenged to show 
reason for not observing the Agape, and that by those who 
believe it to be a divine institution. Accordingly, we must 
discuss the subject with an intelligent consciousness of the 
point at issue. 

It will not be demanded of us to adduce proof of our 
proposition from the great body of Protestant Christians. 
With exceptional unanimity do Protestants agree touching 
the Communion. They may believe differently relative 
to the doctrine of the Communion. Some may hold to 
consubstantiation, while others repudiate this doctrine. 
Some may believe in a mystical real presence, and others 
may deny such a doctrine. Some may accept the doctrine 
of sanctifying grace as being conferred in the Communion, 
while others have no such faith. To some it may be a 
sacrifice as well as a sacrament, while to others it is neither. 
Some make of it chiefly a memorial service, while to others 
such a view would seem utterly inadequate. But on one 
point, with individual exceptions, they are united. They 
alike testify that the bread which we break is the Com- 
munion of the body of Christ, and the cup of blessing 
which we bless is the Communion of the blood of Christ ; 
and that the Communion is complete in this, and that there 



THE COMMUNION A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 145 

is not connected with it another institution equally obliga- 
tory, which is called Agape. They believe in the one 
single and simple ordinance as we have thus characterized 
it, and not in two to be observed together, nor in a twofold 
one. 

From this position there are those who in honesty and 
sincerity dissent, holding that the Agape is obligatory alike 
with the Communion. But the question of present mo- 
ment is this : Do they concede that the Communion is 
what we have described it to be, an institution distinct 
from the Agape, covered by a different name and only 
connected by juxtaposition of time and place with the 
Agape ? If so, then our proposition is established, and we 
celebrate the Scriptural Communion, even if the Agape is a 
Divine institution. Our error then consists in this, that 
whereas Christ instituted two ordinances in connection with 
one another, but not dependent upon each other for their 
validity, we only observe the one, that is, the Communion. 

That those who insist that the Agape is a Divine insti- 
tution yet concede that it is separate and distinct from, and 
not a part, of the Communion, we learn from their own 
testimony. We would not attribute such a position to 
them simply because we view the two observances as en- 
tirely distinct. Hence, we need proof on this point. We 
need to cite witnesses from among the friends of this rite 
which we reject, who will testify that it is distinct from 
the Communion. And we think that such witnesses are 
at hand, who will, by their evidence, establish the correct- 
ness of Worcester's idea of the Agape when he calls it "a 
feast of charity, common among the primitive Christians, 
and celebrated in connection with the Lord's Supper [Com- 
munion], but not as a necessary part of it" 

Such a conclusion, fortunately for the purpose now in 
10 



146 THE COMMUNION A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 

view, cannot be made to depend upon the uncertainties of 
dialectic science. On the contrary, we claim to have the 
most direct, positive and unequivocal testimony touching 
this point. We will confine ourself to the testimony of 
two witnesses. We shall quote first from a work entitled 
" Passover and Lord's Supper." The author of this book 
is J. W. Beer, V. D. M., an honored and worthy member 
of the Brethren Church. By the Lord's Supper as used in 
the title of his book, and, indeed, throughout the book, 
Elder Beer means the Agape. In various ways does he 
concede that the Agape is distinct from the Communion, 
but more particularly in the following quotations: " The 
' feasts of charity ' were observed in connection with the 
'bread and wine' ' (page 219). u They [the love-feasts] 
were observed in connection with the bread and wine — the 
Communion of the body and blood of the Lord " (page 220). 
u Be it remembered, therefore, that the simple fact that 
these authors call the bread and wine the Lord's Supper is 
no evidence at all that the Eucharist was called the Lord's 
Supper before the feast, or supper proper, was faithlessly 
discarded " (Ibid). " The primitive Christians, both in and 
after Apostolic times, did observe a full meal [Agape] in 
connection with the Eucharist, or bread and wine '* (p. 225). 
" Now, just as certain as it is that the going into Galilee 
here spoken of [referring to Matt, xxvi : 32] followed the 
consummation of the resurrection, and constituted no part 
of the resurrection, so certain is it that the cup after supper 
followed the consummation of the supper, and that it formed 
no part of the supper. * * * They did have a supper 
on that night, but both the elements of the Eucharist were 
taken after supper and were no part of it ; and consequently 
the Eucharist, consisting of these elements, was no part of 
the supper " (p. 228). " If one of the ordinances only is to 



THE COMMUNION A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 147 

be designated [meaning the Agape and the Communion] 
let the appropriate name be used." 

Here, then, two ordinances are spoken of, and it is spe- 
cifically stated that the one is not a part of the other They 
are separate and distinct, except in time and place, but are 
no more to be identified than feet-washing and the Com- 
munion. The observance of the one cannot answer for 
both ; neither is the observance of the one incomplete in 
itself without the other. 

To this testimony we add a few words from a work en- 
titled: "A Debate on Trine Immersion, the Lord's Supper 
and Feet- washing." The Grerman Baptists were repre- 
sented in this debate by Elder James Quinter, one of their 
most efficient ministers and a leading editor of one of their 
periodicals. In his first address on the Lord's Supper he 
says : " The Apostolic church had. in connection with the 
symbols of the body and blood of Christ [Communion], a 
meal or supper " [Agape]. " The meal or supper that was 
eaten, and not the bread and wine [Communion], was the 
Lord's Supper" [Agape], " The text (II Peter ii: 14] 
shows most conclusively that the church at that time had 
a feast ; they had an eating [Agape] ; different from, distinct 
from, the eating of the symbols of the body and blood of 
our Lord [Communion]. "After an economical and mod- 
erate supper [Agape], they partook of the Lord's body and 
blood" [Communion]. 

From this testimony the same conclusion follows which 
we were warranted in drawing from Elder Beer's testimony, 
viz : That, according to the views entertained by the author, 
there are two ordinances, the Supper [Agape] and the 
Communion ; and that they are separate and distinct, ex- 
cept in time and place. In the Communion alone we par- 
take of the body and blood of the Lord. Hence, those 



148 THE COMMUNION" A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 

who do not keep the Agape still keep one of these two or- 
dinances — that one in which the Lord's body and blood 
are partaken of. The neglect to keep the Agape may be 
the discarding of a divine ordinance; but it does not vi- 
tiate the celebration of the Commnnion, provided we are 
disciples of Jesus in our error. 

Not only does the direct testimony of these two worthy 
brethren lead to this conclusion ; but in all their labored 
arguments they never once intimate a vital connection be- 
tween these two services. They do say that we do not 
observe the Lord's Supper [Agape], but they fail to say 
that we do not observe the Communion ; and the Com- 
munion is specifically the partaking "of the Lord's body 
and blood." There must hence be two distinct ordinances ; 
so far two, at least, that if in our honest ignorance we can 
see but one, and are still the Lord's, our participation of 
the one is not vitiated by our non-observance of the other. 
So we read these two authors from which we have quoted. 
So testify all the ancient authorities. Hence, our conclu- 
sion, legitimately reached, is that the Communion, consist- 
ing of " the bread which we break " and " the cup of bless- 
ing which we bless," is an accepted and acknowledged in- 
stitution of the Lord Jesus to be perpetually observed by 
the church to the end of time. This Communion we ob- 
serve in what we customarily call the Lord's Supper. 

But if this conclusion is not only legitimately drawn 
from the testimony of these witnesses, but is also in har- 
mony with the Scriptures ; then it follows that there must 
be two separate and distinct acts of institution; two pre- 
cepts commanding the observance of these two separate 
ordinances. The words of institution for the Communion 
can readily be cited. After our Lord had broken the bread 
and given it to his Disciples he said: "This is my body 



THE COMMUNION A DIVINE INSTITUTION. 149 

which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me." 
In passing the cup to his Disciples our Lord said: "Drink 
ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament, 
which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The 
Gospels contain nothing besides which can be construed 
into an instituting act for the Communion. That these 
words amount to a precept of perpetual obligation is no- 
where denied, except by the Quakers, as above indicated. 
But they institute the Communion, and not the Agape and 
the Communion. * So that if the Agape was also instituted 
as an ordinance we must look elsewhere for the words of 
institution. Whether these can be found will be developed 
in subsequent chapters. 






Chapter III. 

Paul, Peter and Jude on the Agape. 

T is a concession to the advocates of the Agape to in- 
troduce, at this stage of the discussion, the question of 
its historical observance. Even Apostolic and patristic 
practice is insufficient to establish the divine origin and 
ritual character of an observance, how much less that of 
later ages. Properly, our first inquiry with reference to 
any service which is claimed to be an ordinance should re- 
late to the Divine institution. The present case is no ex- 
ception. Did Christ institute the Agape ? Did he by pre- 
cept and example indicate it to be his will that the church 
in all ages should celebrate this rite ? If so, then the mat- 
ter is determined, and we need not concern ourselves about 
the historical observance of the rite. If he did not, what 
reason can there be for searching the records of ecclesias- 
tical history to learn whether the Disciples in Apostolic and 
patristic times kept the Agape ? Will that elevate it to 
the dignity of a divine institution ? It cannot be so 
claimed. 

But still our opponents demand that history shall be in- 
terrogated. With them the observance of this assumed 
rite in the early days of the Christian church is supposed 

(150) 



PAUL, PETEE AND JUDE ON THE AGAPE. 151 

to raise a presumption in its favor as a Divine institution. 
They profess to trace it directly to the fountain-head at 
Jerusalem, where, during the last night of Christ with his 
Disciples, it is claimed the example was set which the church 
followed in the Agape. We hence propose to begin our 
investigation immediately subsequent to that occasion, and 
shall diligently inquire into the facts in the case. 

In searching after historical facts we shall for the time 
simply state them as facts, without showing their bearing 
upon the point at issue. In so far, therefore, the discus- 
sion under our second division will be imperfect. But we 
trust that this incomplete presentation of the second part 
of our subject under its proper head will not prove a temp- 
tation to some to make an unjustifiable use of what we 
shall here say, by separating the admissions which we may 
make from what we may have further to say with reference 
to them. We are to listen here to he voice of history, sacred 
and ecclesiastical, touching the Agape and its connection 
with the Communion ; but a mere recital of history, should 
we even find the Agape in connection with the Communion, 
will not be construed into proof or an admission that the 
Agape is a Divine institution connected with the Communion. 
We do not desire to conceal a line of historical testimony ; 
but knowing what that testimony will be we are prepared to 
say, in advance, that it is wholly insufficient to establish the 
affirmation that the Agape was instituted by Christ, in con- 
nection with the Communion, as a perpetual ordinance. 

II. The Agape in sacred and ecclesiastical history. 

Is there any inspired testimony to the effect that the 
Agape was connected with the Communion ? We do not 
now inquire whether there is any testimony to prove that 
it was instituted as an ordinance alike obligatory with the 
Communion. It might have been observed in Apostolic 



152 paul's testimony. 

times and still not be an ordinance. That question, how- 
ever, we shall remand to our third sub-division, when we 
shall inquire what the Scriptures have to say as to the Di- 
vine character of this institution. We want purely his- 
toric testimony touching an alleged fact, viz : The custom 
of observing the Agape in connection with the Communion. 

It is alleged that in three of the Epistles of the New 
Testament there is evidence sufficient to establish the fact 
that in the practice of the churches in Apostolic times the 
Agape and the Communion were observed together. These 
are the first Epistle to the Corinthians (xi) ; the second 
Epistle of Peter (ii), and the Epistle of Jude. 

1. The testimony of Paul, 

Paul's testimony, it is claimed, is found in 1 Cor. xi :18-34. 
The passage reads as follows : 

18. " For first of all, when ye come together in the church, 
I hear that there be divisions among you, and I partly be- 
lieve it. 

19. For there must be also heresies among you, that 
they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 

20. When ye come together therefore in one place, this 
is not to eat the Lord's Supper. 

21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own 
supper; and one is hungry and another is drunken. 

22. What ? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? 
Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that 
have not? 

23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I 
delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in 
which he was betrayed took bread ; 

24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and 
said : Take eat ; this is my body, which is broken for you ; 
this do in remembrance of me. 



Paul's testimony. 153 

25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
he had supped, saying : This cup is the New Testament in 
my blood ; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
of me. 

26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, 
ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 

27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink 
this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
body and blood of the Lord. 

28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
of that bread and drink of that cup. 

29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth 
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the 
Lord's bodv. 

30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among 
you, and many sleep. 

31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be 
judged. 

32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the 
Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 

33. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to 
eat, tarry one for another. 

34. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home ; that 
ye come not together unto condemnation." 

On the face of it there is nothing in this section that can 
be regarded as evidence that the Agape and the Communion 
were celebrated together. If a student of the Bible were 
wholly ignorant of the Agape and should come to the 
study of this section of the Divine word, after having gone 
through the Gospels and Acts, what would he find in it? 
That is the way to test testimony so as to determine the 
points which it is sufficient to establish. He would find : 



154 paul's testimony. 

1. That there is something that is called the Lord's 
Sapper. 

2. Possibly that the Corinthians professed to eat this 
supper ; bu£ in some way vitiated their performance to such 
an extent that it could not be counted as eating the Lord's 
Supper. 

3. That their public meal is rather condemned than ap- 
proved ; at least the manner of observing their public 
feast, while the intimation is very strong that they ought 
to do their eating at home. 

4. A statement of the original institution of the Com- 
munion (but without specially giving it a name), accom- 
panied with sundry injunctions and conclusions. 

5. And the whole narrative seems to say that instead of 
their public feast (vs. 20-22), in which they professed to 
eat the Lord's Supper, the true way to observe that memo- 
rial is to follow the simplicity of the original institution 
(vs. 23-26), and to do their eating to satisfy hunger at 
home (vs. 22-34). 

So much, we say, is on the face of this testimony, and 
whatever more it may be made to say, if it can say more, 
must be by the light of other testimony. If we should 
seek to illuminate this testimony by the light of Corinth- 
ian history we might see in this custom of the Corinthian 
church either a perversion of the Communion into the Gre- 
cian club feast called eranos, or the observance of the two 
together. If, on the other hand, we should go into the 
realm of church history for light we should gradually begin 
to see the Agape in Paul's allusions, and should conclude, 
as some have done, that the Corinthians so abused the 
Agape that they could not or did not observe the Com- 
munion. But which, if either, of these constructions was 
Paul's meaning who can determine? And, moreover, 



peter's testimony. 155 

when we have determined the construction which Paul 
would accept it might be of no moment so far as our pres- 
ent purpose is concerned, unless, indeed, this was the 
Agape, and that he approved its connection with the Com- 
munion. On this point there is a diversity of opinions, 
one of the best indications that the testimony is not very 
clear. 

That Paul attempted to correct an abuse is evident, but 
precisely what that abuse was is difficult to determine. 
We could hence not accept this testimony in itself as in 
anywise sufficient to establish the proposition that the 
Corinthians observed two institutions, or that thev even 
intended to have the Agape and the Communion. They 
did eat and drink in the assembly more than is done at the 
Communion ; but whether their eating and drinking was 
to be the Communion alone, or the Agape alone, or the 
two together yet distinct, these are matters which we can- 
not determine from Paul's testimony. It is not even clear 
what he means by the term the Lord's Supper, although 
the weight of authority favors the position that this was 
the recognized name of the full meal which these Corinth- 
ians were accustomed to eat in their assemblies, and to eat 
at the appointed or stated times for the Communion. 

2. The testimony of Peter, 

This is found in the second Epistle, ii : 13. He is speak- 
ing of those who "walk after the flesh in the lust of un- 
cleanness," and says of them : " Spots (they are) and blem- 
isheSj sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while 
they feast with you." 

There is one thing very evident, so far as this testimony 
is concerned, that among the Christians in Asia Minor 
feasting with each other or together ecclesiastically was 
practiced. So far as Peter is concerned these feasts have 



156 jude's testimony. 

no name, for we cannot consent to exchange apatais (de- 
ceivings) and insert agapais (love-feasts) in the text. Neither 
is that of any consequence. But the testimony of Peter is 
absolutely silent as to the essential point, viz : The celebra- 
tion of the Communion in connection with these ecclesias- 
tical feasts. It is possible that among the diaspora to whom 
Peter wrote these public banquets, as Pollux explains 
suneuochoamenos, "feast with you" (II Pet. ii: 13), were 
held in connection with the Communion ; but Peter says 
absolutely nothing about it. Whoever puts that into his 
testimony adds to the sacred text. 

3. The testimony of Jude. 

In his short Epistle Jude very nearly repeats what Peter 
wrote in the second chapter of his second Epistle, or vice 
versa. He uses the word agapais, plural of Agape, and so 
raises a presumption that the feasts of which Peter speaks 
were the agapais also. But they may not have been thus 
known among the "dispersion," and hence Peter does not 
apply a name to them. Jude testifies thus: "These are 
spots in your feasts of charity [love-feasts], when they feast 
with you, feeding themselves without fear." Here, then, 
is a feast again, and this time it is the Agape; that is, it is 
called Agape or love-feast. That it is so-called is no more 
in favor of the position that a full meal should be eaten in 
connection with the Communion, than the fact that it is 
not so called by Peter or by Paul is against such a position. 
The name is of no moment. Only from this time on we 
shall find ourselves in company with this name. But, as 
in the case of Peter, there is a fatal defect in this testimony. 
Jude does not say that these feasts were held in connection 
with the Communion. Touching the Communion Jude 
is absolutely silent. This silence to our mind, however, 
is no argument against the proposition that the Communion 



jude's testimony. . 157 

and the Agape went together. That may be ; but a thing 
is not proved because it may be. And hence this silence 
is no argument in favor of the proposition that these Christ- 
ians did observe the Communion in connection with these 
agapais. 

We have thus gone through the whole of the inspired 
testimony relative to this point, and have found : 

1. That it was a common practice among Christians in 
different countries to assemble together and feast ; that is, 
eat a meal. 

2. That these feasts were the occasion of serious abuses 
in certain churches. 

3. That they received gradually, or in some localities, 
the name of agapais or feasts of love — love-feasts. 

4. Possibly, that at least in some churches these meals 
preceded the Communion, or took the place of the Com- 
munion ; that is, the Communion was perverted into Gre- 
cian club-feasts. 

Whatever may have been the relation of the Communion 
to these feasts, and however clearly such relation may be 
established by later and uninspired testimony, this is all 
that can be fairly deduced from the Scriptures. Other 
testimony may create a clear presumption that at the close 
of these feasts, of which Peter and Jude speak, it was cus- 
tomary to observe the Communion ; but that does not put 
it into their testimony. The above four points are a com- 
plete summation of the testimony of the Bible. 



Chapter IV. 

The Agape in Ecclesiastical History. 

N the preceding chapter we dwelt upon the inspired 
testimony relative to the eating of a full meal in con- 

^ nection with the Communion. We found a full meal 
partaken of in ecclesiastical assemblies among the Jewish 
Christians in Asia Minor, but we found no intimations that 
the Communion was celebrated in connection with these 
meals. We also found a full meal partaken of among the 
Gentile Christians of Corinth at their public assemblies, but 
in Paul's testimony respecting these suppers it is not pos- 
sible, without supposing a good deal, to conclude that they 
were eaten in connection with the Communion. They may 
have been a total perversion of the Communion into a feast 
like the eranoi of the Greeks. They may have been full 
meals in imitation of the last supper of our Lord and his 
Disciples without the Communion, but taking the place of 
the Communion. 

This supposition is made the more probable when we 

bear in mind the two facts which most of all reflect light 

on Paul's language to the Corinthians. The first is the 

general testimony that the term "Lord's Supper" did not 

originally designate the Communion. The second, that 

(158) 



POST- APOSTOLIC TESTIMONY. 159 

this supper among the Corinthians had so far displaced the 
Communion that Paul felt constrained to repeat what he 
had received of the Lord as the Communion of his body 
and blood. But it is still possible that the unperverted 
custom ordinarily was to have the Agape precede the Com- 
munion. So it is possible in the case of the full social 
meal among the Jewish Christians in Asia Minor. Only 
we must carefully bear in mind that an admitted possi- 
bility is no proof. We must take the inspired testimony 
just as we find it, without additions thereto or subtractions 
therefrom. Later testimony cannot add anything to this 
inspired evidence, but it may render it morally probable 
that these meals were eaten in connection with the Com- 
munion. 

The testimony of Paul brings us down to the year A. D. 
59, about twenty-five years subsequent to the institution 
of the Communion. That of Peter and Jude was given 
probably in the same year, and about seven years later 
than that of Paul. What customs prevailed in relation to 
the Communion and social feasts during those twenty-five 
to thirty-two years among Jewish and Gentile Christians 
we know not. It is possible they frequently partook of 
full meals in their religious assemblies, but of their relation 
to the Communion nothing is known. We must carefully 
guard against the constant liability to carry our modern 
ideas back to those peculiar times. Then they had no 
houses of worship. They were shut out of the synagogues. 
Promiscuous assemblies of believers and non-believers for 
worship, such as we now see in our churches, were un- 
known. The Christians assembled in private houses, and 
thus spent their hours of religious fellowship more like 
families in social intercourse than as public assemblies for 
worship. Hence, that they should frequently, if not sta- 



160 THE TESTIMONY OF IGNATIUS. 

tedly, eat full meals together, for which each family fur- 
nished a portion, is a most natural supposition, although 
a supposition difficult of direct proof. 

Leaving now the period of inspired history, let us in- 
quire what testimony can be produced to prove that in 
post- Apostolic times the Agape was eaten in connection 
with the Communion. The testimony of modern histo- 
rians, commentators and other authors, can be adduced to 
almost any extent to the effect that in the earliest post- 
Apostolic times the Agape and the Communion (perhaps) 
invariably went together. This is presumptive evidence 
that there is good, reliable testimony to this effect on rec- 
ord from men living in those primitive times. Let us see 
then what this testimony is. 

We have but a limited number of witnesses to examine 
touching this point. Up to the middle of the third cen- 
tury we can find but seven names appealed to as witnesses 
in this controversy. These are Ignatius, one of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers, bishop of Antioch from A. D. 69 ; Justin 
Martyr, who lived between A. D. 89 and 176 ; Clement of 
Rome, a fellow-laborer with Paul, who is supposed to have 
written about A. D. 96 ; Clement of Alexandria, who died 
between A. D. 212 and 220; Tertullian, who flourished 
between A. D. 160 and 220; Cyprian, who suffered mar- 
tyrdom in A. D. 258, and Ireiueus, who died A. D. 202. 
We regret that we have not all their writings at our com- 
mand, but we will reproduce the points to which each tes- 
tifies as fully as we can from other sources. 

I. Ignatius. Kitto says Ignatius in his letter to the 
church at Smyrna uses the expression, "making an agapein," 
in the sense of celebrating the Eucharist (^Kitto's Cyclo 
paedia, p. 82). But in the section immediately preceding 
the one of which Kitto speaks he refers particularly to the 



ESTIMONT OF JUSTIN, CLEMENT OF KOME, &c. 161 



Agape in the use of the word agapan. Kitto's statement 
is hence only an inference. Dr. William Smith only cites 
Ignatius as a witness for the celebration of the Agape, but 
not for its connection with the Communion (Dictionary of 
Antiquities, p. 40). Chambers in his Encyclopaedia (p. 116) 
states that it was his opinion that Ignatius seems to regard 
the Agape and the Lord's Supper as identical. But that is 
not at all saying that he regarded the Agape and the Com- 
munion as identical, for in his time the Communion was 
not called Lord's Supper, but the Agape, we think, was. 

II. Justin Martyr clearly speaks of the Agape as a cus- 
tomary religious meal in his time. He states that oblations 
or offerings for the meal were brought by the different 
church members, and that a common meal was made, while 
the surplus was given to those in need (Bingham 1 s Antiqui- 
ties of the Christian Church). But what is peculiar about 
this testimony is that when he speaks of the Communion 
he says nothing about the Agape. Dr. Kitto says the 
Agape is not even alluded to in Justin Martyr's description 
of the Communion ( Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature ; also 
Chambers Cyclopaedia). 

III. From Clement of Rome we have nothing except 
some reference to the "oblations and sacred functions of 
the church," in which Dr. Waterland supposes that he 
" very probably refers to the Eucharistical service" (Doc- 
trine of the Eucharist, p. 22). But as oblations were more 
commonly spoken of in connection with the Agape, there 
is an equal if not greater probability that Clement refers to 
these (see Art u Oblations " Smith's Diet, of Christian Ant, 
p. 1420). 

IV. Clement of Alexandria undoubtedly speaks of the 
Agape in one of his writings (Poe-dog. II, p. 142). But our 

11 



162 THE TESTIMONY OF CYPRIAN AND IREN^EUS. 

information is too limited to enable us to give the purport 
of his testimony. 

V. Tertullian's testimony is also given to the same ef- 
fect for Western Africa. ' His account is in every way 
similar to that above outlined as the testimony of Justin 
Martyr. There is, however, this difference, that while 
Justin, when he speaks of the Communion, says nothing of 
the Agape, so that we cannot determine whether they were 
connected ; so Tertullian in speaking of the Agape makes 
no mention of the Communion (Kitto, p. 82). He even 
speaks of the Agape as a banquet of God (Dock of the Eu- 
charist, p. 20). 

VI. Cyprian, at least in one instance, speaks of the 
Agape as the Lord's Supper {Bingham s Ant) It will be 
remembered that Lord's Supper here does not mean the 
Communion. Whether he implies that the Communion 
was connected with the Agape is hard now to determine. 
His terms are not well understood now. He speaks of the 
" Lord's Supper," of " corban " and of " eating part of the 
sacrifice which the poor had offered." All this we con- 
strue as referring to the Agape. But he further speaks of 
these "oblations " as if he meant to say that a part of this 
" sacrifice" wQre usually "sanctified" for use in the Com- 
munion (Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 26). 

VII. Irenseus speaks of " God's Supper," but without 
any allusion to the Communion (Doctrine of the Eucharist, 
p. 20). In other places he speaks u of the oblation of the 
Eucharist," but makes no distinction betweed Agape and 
Communion (Ibid, p. 23). Oblations were the gifts of va- 
rious kinds which were brought to the bishops in those 
times, and a part of them consisted of bread and wine 
(Smith's Diet. Chr. Ant). 

This is the testimony up to A. D. 250. Later there is 



FROM A. D. 70 TO 250. 163 

abundant evidence to prove that in connection with the 
Agape, for which oblations were brought, the Communion 
was generally celebrated, the elements being consecrated for 
this purpose from the oblations. Now, what may we justly 
conclude for the period from A. D. 70 to A. D. 250 from 
the testimony before us ? One thing is not to be disputed — 
that ecclesiastical historians almost unanimously state that 
the Agape was observed by the church during this period ; 
that it was made of the offerings brought by the member- 
ship to the place of meeting ; that at the close of the Agape 
(generally) the Communion was celebrated. There are ex- 
ceptions and variations in evidence, and there are witnesses 
only to these facts in certain localities ; but the conclusion 
reached is that the Agape existed during this period gen- 
erally in connection with the Communion. We need not 
quote authorities. We can furnish a score now lying be- 
fore us if needed. 

If the verdict of twelve jurymen is unanimously ren- 
dered, one should be in possession of new evidence to dis- 
pute it. So in this case. We are not disposed to dispute 
real evidence ; we are not ready to set aside this verdict. 
Yet we know that there is room for a strong plea against 
so sweeping a decision, and in favor of a verdict which 
harmonizes more fully with all the testimony. But with all 
this, we have no hesitancy in saying that a common social 
meal was often eaten in the religious assemblies possibly 
in Apostolic, and certainly in immediately post- Apostolic, 
times ; that at the close of this meal, and sometimes before 
it, frequently the Communion was celebrated ; but whether 
the two were always connected is not in evidence. 



Chapter V. 

Is the Agape a Divine Institution? 

T has been seen that the direct evidence in favor of the 
Agape in connection with the Communion is very 
meager, so much so, in fact, especially in the first cen- 
tury, that upon it alone it is an extremely doubtful matter. 
But by taking in the evidence of the second and third cen- 
turies the fact seems to become morally certain that the 
Agape as a frequent meal in ecclesiastical assemblies was 
in existence as early as the time of Paul, and that the pro- 
bability is that often, if not generally, at its close, but some- 
times before the Agape, but as a distinct institution, the 
Communion was solemnized. Hence, this conclusion is 
adopted by Dr. William Smith {Diet. Chr. Ant), Bingham 
(Ant. of the Chr. Ch.), Waterland (Doctrine of the Eucharist), 
Kurtz (Oh. Hist), Eadie (Eccl. Cyclop.), Staunton (Eccl. 
Diet), Fisher (Begin, of Chr.), Schaff (Hist of Apos. Ch.), 
Kitto (Cyclop. Bib. Lit), Neander (Hist Chr. Eel. and 
Ch.), Coleman (And. Chr. Ex.), Cave (Prim. Chr.), Mac- 
knight (Com.), Mosheim (Ch. Hist), Clarke (Com.), Lange 
(Com.), and others whose testimony lies before us. How 
few of these examined the original evidence we have no 

(164) 



Christ's last meal not a special one. 165 

means of knowing; but we doubt not that the majority 
depended on second-hand testimony. Their opinions are 
no evidence ; but if they examined the original testimony 
we accept their views as we would the decision of a jury. 
This, then, brings us face to face with the question relative 
to the origin of the Agape. Is it a divine institution, or is 
it a human custom ? Hence our third topic. 

III. Is there divine authority for the perpetual observance 
of the Agape as a religious ordinance f 

In the discussion of this question, by some of those who 
are in the affirmative, great stress is laid upon the ques- 
tion whether Christ and his Disciples, on the evening of 
the night on which he was betrayed, ate the Passover of 
the Jews or a special meal ordered by the Lord to be pre- 
pared for the occasion. We think there is something in 
this, but it is not vital. Either way Christ could institute 
a full meal in addition to the Communion. Either way 
he could institute the Communion by itself. Hence the 
vital question is, What did Christ command? This is 
everywhere recognized as the ultimate criterion. One of 
the staunch advocates of the Agape., speaking with refer- 
ence to it, has said, " Do not believe that any thing com- 
manded by the Lord is a mere formality. If it be sustained 
that a thing is of the Lord" (Quinter and McConnell 
Debate). In view of this fact one might regard the attempt 
to found an argument on the supposed fact (for it is not 
susceptible of proof) that Christ and his Disciples ate a 
special meal as a confession of weakness. It can only at 
best be used to raise a presumption that such special meal 
was commanded to be perpetuated. And this taken to- 
gether with the practice of social fellowship-meals among 
the first Disciples, which naturally crystallized into the 
regular institution of the Agape even in later Apostolic 



166 CHRIST ATE THE PASSOVER. 

times, would, it is urged, make a two fold presumption in 
favor of such a command. But, until the command itself 
is produced, what do presumptions amount to? Would it 
be safe to adopt such a course as a principle in other mat- 
ters ? It is a matter of extreme doubt. 

Again, that these combined presumptions are not suffi- 
cient to warrant us in assuming the existence of a command 
is further evident from the fact that there are good and 
conscientious men who believe that Christ and his Disci- 
ples did eat a special meal, and that the Agape was cele- 
brated as early as Jude's time, who yet utterly deny that 
the latter is an ordinance commanded by Christ. There 
are at least three distinct opinions relative to the last meal 
Christ ate with his Disciples. 

I. The most ancient and most widely received is, that 
our Lord and his Disciples kept the legal Passover, and 
on the same day with the Jews. 

II. That our Lord anticipated the time of the legal 
Passover and so kept his Passover before the Jews did. 

A modification of this is, that the Jews postponed their 
Passover, while Christ and his Disciples kept it on the 
legal time. 

III. That our Lord kept no Passover at all, but had a 
special supper— a supper for himself and Disciples — at the 
close of which he instituted the Communion. 

We have several authorities before us who take this 
latter view, besides those who hold that "this supper is a 
religious ordinance, instituted by Christ, and to be observed 
by his followers " {Passover and Lords Supper). The 
object is to harmonize the testimony of the four Gospels, 
while it is held that John's Gospel cannot possibly be 
harmonized with the other three upon the supposition 
that the meal eaten by Christ and his Disciples on the 



CHKIST ATE THE PASSOVER. 167 

night of his betrayal was the Passover. That Matthew 
Mark and Luke clearly seem to testify that it was the 
Passover is not disputed. Dr. "Wall says : " One would 
think by reading the three [Matthew, Mark and Luke], 
that that was the night on which the Jews did eat their 
Passover Lamb" (Wall's Critical Notes on K T., p. 33). 
Again : " Now this was the same night, and the same sup- 
per which the three do call the Passover, and Christ's eat- 
ing the Passover " (Ibid). And yet Dr. Wall holds that 
it was. not the Passover but a supper which Christ had or- 
dered to be prepared for himself and his Disciples. What 
do these three Gospels testify ? 

I. That Jesus directed his Disciples to go into the city 
to such and such a man and tell him that they were sent 
there to arrange for the keeping of the Passover. Matthew 
says, Jesus said, " Say unto him, the Master saith, my 
time is at hand ; / will keep the Passover at thy house 
with my Disciples (xxvi : 18). Luke: "He sent Peter 
and John, saying, Gro and prepare us the Passover that we 
may eat " (xxiii : 8). Mark : " The Master saith, where 
is the guest-chamber, where 1 shall eat the Passover with 
my Disciples? And he will shew you a large upper 
room * * there make ready for us (xiv: 13-15). 

II. That these two Disciples went, as Jesus had directed 
them, "and made ready the Passover" (Matt, xxvi: 19; 
Luke xxii : 13 ; Mk. xiv : 16). 

III. That in the evening Jesus and the twelve sat down 
to eat this Passover, which Peter and John had made ready 
(Matt, xxvi : 20, 21 ; Luke xxii: 14-16 ; Mk. xiv : 17, 18). 

Whatever John may say of the meal at which Jesus 
washed his Disciples' feet, one thing is self-evident — that 
the testimony of these three evangelists is not to be nulli- 
fied thereby. Indeed, John does not say anything which 



168 CHRIST ATE THE PASSOVER. 

necessarily comes in conflict with the testimony of the 
other Evangelists. It can and must either be harmonized 
therewith or else we must conclude that the occasion he 
speaks of was an entirely different one. This last suppo- 
sition is a plaiisible one, and is adopted by some, but we 
do not deem it necessary in order to a solution of the se- 
rious difficulties which the narrative involves. But to 
overturn the plain testimony of these Evangelists in favor 
of the one is a proceeding which it is difficult to justify, 
and all the more so when there is no manner of necessity 
for it. 

That we are fully sustained in thus interpreting the tes- 
timony of Matthew, Mark and Luke can be shown by 
abundant citations. Drs. Kitto, Smith, Jahn, Lange and 
a host of others, foremost as biblical scholars and interpre- 
ters, defend the view which we have here advanced. Even 
if our position were not so fully sustained, the mere possi- 
bility of a contrary view can have but little weight in de- 
termining the question as to whether Christ commanded 
the perpetual eating of a full meal in a religious capacity. 
We want something more positive,— less liable to serious 
and even unanswerable objections, and involved in fewer 
doubts as the basis of a religious ordinance. We, hence, 
dismiss this part of our subject as having no effective bear- 
ing upon the ultimate conclusion, and as an argument so 
weak and beset with such serious difficulties as to render 
it practically useless. We are justified in this conclusion 
by able advocates of the Agape as a religious ordinance. 
Eld. James Quinter, who has no superior in the Brethren 
Church as a defender of their special views, makes no use 
of this supposed argument in defense of the Agape. In a 
protracted discussion with Rev. N. A. McConnell lie ad- 
vanced, we presume, every argument of weight to his mind 



CHRIST ATE THE PASSOVER. 169 

to sustain his position, " that the meal [full meal, Agape] 
or supper that was eaten [by the primitive Christians], and 
not the bread and wine, was the Lord's Supper.'' But he 
does not even allude to the view that Christ and his Dis- 
ciples ate a special meal, and not the Passover, on the night 
of his betrayal (see Quinter and McConnell Debate). He 
could, hence, not have thought it a point of much weight, 
or else too doubtful to be introduced in a discussion with 
an able opponent. And, if so, he was eminently right. 
For, first, it is a point not only not susceptible of proof, but 
so weakened by the unanimous and emphatic testimony of 
three Evangelists against it, as to make its introduction as 
an argument unjustifiable. And, second, it would still be 
equally necessary to prove that its perpetual celebration in 
religious assemblies was commanded. This last is the ul- 
timate touch-stone of a religious ordinance. u Thus saith 
the Lord "is not only conclusive ; it is absolutely essential. 
If it cannot be shown that the Lord commanded the eating 
of a full meal in a religious capacity in connection with the 
Communion, then no such meal can be eaten, except as a 
human custom and institution. 



® 



^§§^V®> 




Chapter VI. 

The Agape not an Ordinance according to Paul, Peter and 

Jude. 

E closed our discussion of the question, whether 
on the night Christ was betrayed he ate the Pas- 
sover, or a meal specially prepared by his direc- 
tion, with the statement that if it cannot be shown that the 
Lord commanded the earing of a full meal in a religious ca- 
pacity in connection with the Communion, then no such 
meal can be eaten, except as a human custom and institution. 
We regard this as an unquestioned position. We hold 
that a Divine ordinance must have at least a Divine pre- 
cept. The Church of the Brethren holds to the same posi- 
tion. Other Protestant bodies of Christians, we believe, 
without exception have adopted this principle. They hold 
that the first thing included in an ordinance is " an outward 
visible sign used according to Christ's own appointment' 1 
{Hodge's Outlines, p. 471). Can this element be found in 
the Agape? 

There seem to be three ways in which it has been sought 
to supply this element of an ordinance in the Agape. These 
are: 

1. To deduce it from the two facts that Christ and his 
Disciples ate a full meal before the Communion was insti- 

(170) 



THE AGAPE KOT A "SIGN." Ac. 171 



tuted, and that at an early day a full meal was partaken of 
by the churches in connection with the Communion. 

2. By interpreting the language of the Apostles Paul, 
Peter, and Jude so as to signify an approval of the full 
meal. 

3. By so construing the words of institution of the Com- 
munion as to include the previous meal (See Passover 
and Lord's Supper, and Quinter and McConnell Debate). 

Here is at once a confession of the absence of a plain 
command. This indirect evidence is only introduced be- 
cause direct evidence is not procurable. To the first of 
the above three methods of argumentation we have decided 
and serious objections. 

1. Such a course would open the way for every kind of 
innovation. The Eoman Catholic sacraments of confirma- 
tion, extreme unction, penance, orders, etc., can boast of 
authority in some form like this. Even the defenders of 
indulgences, of infant communion, of liturgical serves, ap- 
peal to the Scriptures, to the Apostolic and post- Apostolic 
church, and sometimes to the blessed Lord himself. In 
the absence of a Divine precept we hence think it to be 
dangerous in the extreme to build religious ordinances 
upon such a foundation. 

2. We have no evidence that in the primitive church 
the example of our Lord in eating a full meal on the night 
in which he instituted the Communion was ever considered 
equivalent to the ordaining of such a meal as a religious 
ordinance in the church. In the absence of such evidence 
this first argument breaks down completely. It is not 
enough to infer that they so considered his example. They 
did many things in imitation of acts of their Lord which 
were not considered binding. Besides, there are indica- 
tions which clearly show that they made a great difference 



172 THE AGAPE NOT REGARDED AS AN ORDINANCE. 

between the full meal and the Communion. To these we 
shall refer later. 

It is no argument in answer to the foregoing to say : 
The full meal is nowhere forbidden in the Epistles where 
allusions are made to it Perhaps not. But such a posi- 
tion is untenable as an argument for a positive institution. 
Thus it is said: "There is not the faintest intimation in 
the entire connection [referring to II Peter ii : 13, and 
Jude 12] to indicate that they disapproved of these feasts " 
(Passover and Lord's Supper). They could approve of 
them, and still that would not make them divine ordi- 
nances. Jude says: "These people carouse with you, 
push themselves to your Agapais ;" but it is singular that 
in Apostolic times they would not only do so with im- 
punity, but that Jude does not insist upon separation. Did 
he, therefore, approve it? Neither are they anywhere re- 
ferred to as possessing the dignity of an ordinance. Peter 
even possibly plays upon the word agapais when he in- 
serts in his text the word apatais. 

We said, perhaps the full meal is not forbidden. To 
our mind it is clearly remanded among traditionary cus- 
toms by the Apostle Pau] (I Cor. xi: 20-26). Here Paul 
condemns the Corinthians for their manner of feasting to- 
gether. Then he in effect says : Instead of a feast having 
been instituted by the Lord, I will tell you what I received 
from him. He then gives the revelation which he re- 
ceived touching the thing Christ instituted on the night in 
which he was betrayed. But he leaves the Agape out. 
That he did not receive from the Lord. 

3. There are indications that in primitive times the 
full meal was not regarded as of the same dignity and sig- 
nificance with the Communion, and that they regarded the 
Communion as supplanting the Jewish Passover as a dis- 



THE AGAPE NOT KEGABDED AS AN ORDINANCE. 173 

tinct and complete institution in itself. No one can read 
the literature of the Communion as found in the writings 
of the early Christians without feeling convinced that to 
them it had a significance and dignity which do not attach 
to the Agape. Ignatius, as well as Justin and Irenaeus, 
laid great stress on the mysterious connection subsisting 
between the Logos and the elements in the Communion. 
But of the Agape they fail to speak in such lofty strains. 
How Ignatius, Justin, Irenasus, Tertullian, Cyprian and 
others could speak as they do of the Communion only, 
without at times even mentioning the Agape in the same 
connection, is hard to understand if they regarded them 
both alike as inseparable divine institutions. 

Moreover, at an early day the regular custom of having 
a full meal before the Communion was changed, and the 
meal succeeded the Communion or was wholly dispensed 
with, it being regarded requisite to take the Communion fast- 
ing ( Tertullian, De Cor. Militis, § 3). At other times even in 
Justin's day (born A. D. 89) the Communion was admin- 
istered without a meal {Justin s Apol. I. C. 65). And 
finally the Agape was given up altogether. Councils had 
made regulations concerning it, showing that they did not 
regard it as a divine institution, and upon the publication 
of Pliny's edict the Agapce were generally discontinued. 
It is a strong proof in favor of our position, that the 
primitive Christians did not consider the Agape of divine 
authority, when it is remembered that " it is the only part 
of their public conduct which even torture and death 
could compel them to alter" {Eadis Eccl. Cyclop.). How 
it most likely originated we shall see further on. But in 
view of the foregoing facts is it not evident that this first 
argument in favor of the Agape as a divine institution is 
utterly insufficient ? 



174 PAUL AGAINST THE AGAPE. 

It has already appeared incidentally how weak the sec- 
ond position is in which an attempt is made so to construe 
the language of Paul, Peter, and Jude as to signify an ap- 
proval of the Agape. 

1. That alone would not be sufficient. It is enough for 
the Communion when Paul says : " For I have received of 
the Lord" (I Cor. xi : 23) ; but unfortunately he does not 
say this of the Agape. Neither Paul, Peter nor Jude so 
speaks of the full meal as to imply that Christ instituted it 
as an ordinance. 

2. As said, they speak of other things and approve them ; 
but that does not make them ordinances. Some of the 
Eoman Catholic sacraments are based upon what is found 
in the Epistles. They also speak of certain matters in 
connection with these meals in reference to which they say 
far less than we might expect. But to found an ordinance 
upon what Paul, Peter and Jude say about feasts is wholly 
unwarranted. 

3. To our mind Paul rather condemns than approves 
the full meal. Speaking of the public feasts of the Cor- 
inthians he says : " What! have ye not houses to eat and 
to drink in? " Then he virtually says: u Instead of such 
feasting I will tell you what I received of the Lord." 
Then he tells them how the Master instituted the Com- 
munion. Not a word about the Agape, and yet he states 
that the Communion was instituted after a meal. Then 
he concludes by saying : u If any man hunger, let him eat 
at home." As much as to say : When the Communion is 
celebrated that is not the time to eat to satisfy hunger. It 
is certainly a far easier matter to construe Paul's language 
to the Corinthians as spoken against the Agape, the sup- 
per, than in favor of it, and so we understand him. Weak, 
extremely weak, as these positions in favor of the Agape 



THE AGAPE KEPUDIATED BY PAUL. 175 

seem, they constitute the burden of the argument in favor 
of it as a divine institution upon which its most prominent 
advocates mainly depend. Some of them we have not 
found anywhere attempting to prove that Christ explicitly 
commanded the observance of the Agape perpetually in 
the church. In Passover and Lord's Supper we can trace 
the third argument in favor of a full meal — that it was 
instituted — but the author of this work, too, relies prin- 
cipally upon these two arguments here examined. As 
an ordinance, therefore, the Agape would rest on an infer- 
ence ; it is inferred that Christ instituted it. To our mind 
this is quite insufficient. If we could upon such grounds 
and by such a process of interpretation lift the Agape into 
the exalted plane of a divine ordinance we would be ready 
for confirmation, extreme unction and other innovations. 
We might almost justify Tetzel with his indulgences, and 
insist on the Catholic doctrine of penance. The Agape, 
kept in the sobriety and simplicity of the earliest and pur- 
est times, was a beautiful custom. It might have been 
continued as a custom to the end of time with profit to all 
had it been sacredly guarded against encroaching evils • 
but it still could never attain to the dignity of an ordi- 
nance — a Divine institution. 




Chapter VII. 

Christ did not Institute the Agape. 

E have seen that the attempt to base a divine in- 
stitution "upon an implied command, or upon the 
supposed approval of the Apostles Paul, Peter 
and Jude, is a total failure. It remains to be seen whether 
any better success has attended the effort to find an ex- 
plicit command. Has Christ anywhere directly and ex- 
plicitly commanded the perpetual eating of a full meal in 
connection with the Communion ? In the whole of Eld. 
Quinter's discussion with Mr. McConnell we have failed to 
find a direct affirmation of such a command. He confines 
himself to Apostolic and primitive practice. If he claims 
no command from Christ, then, so far as this point is con- 
cerned, he gives up the question. To infer a command 
from an alleged primitive custom is a dangerous experi- 
ment. Too many things found their way into the churches 
in Apostolic times without authority. Besides, it is a very 
easy matter, as we shall see, to account for the custom of a 
full meal in connection with the Communion without sup- 
posing a divine command. And as a different origin, in 
our judgment, will more fully meet the whole case, the 
probabilities are in its favor. 

(176) 



NO COMMAND IN JOHN FOR THE AGAPE. 177 

Eld. Beer (Passover and Lord's Supper, pp. 138-9") claims 
a Divine command for the eating of a full meal. Any 
such claim demands respectful consideration, for it is the 
point which is vital to the question. He says : " You will 
now bear in mind that our Lord had entered upon the in- 
stitution of ordinances to be observed by his Disciples [re- 
ferring to John xiii : 16, 17]. He had already washed the 
feet of his Disciples, and had enjoined the service upon 
them ; and at the time he used this language they were sit- 
ting at the supper table, and about to eat. 11 At this point, 
Eld. Beer says, Christ said: "If ye know these things, 
happy are ye if ye do them." And as he used the plural — 
these things — he must have referred to feet- washing and the 
full meal. The conclusion is not a necessary one. Christ 
could properly and grammatically say just what he did 
with exclusive reference to the feet-washing ceremony and 
matters connected therewith. This is evident from the 
fact that all commentators, so far as we know, understand 
Christ to refer to the feet-washing. Does not Eld. Quinter, 
a staunch advocate of the Agape, so understand the Savior? 
If not, why does he not cite this "command" in favor of 
the Agape as a Divine ordinance ? At any rate, hosts of 
unexceptional authorities contradict Eld. Beer, and affirm 
not only that such an interpretation is not a necessary one, 
but that it is not the correct one. Before us are the views 
of Lyman Abbott (Com. on John), Henry (Comp. Com.), 
Bloomfield, Clarke (Com. on Ni T.), Benson (Com. on John), 
John Peter Lange (Com. on John), and several others, all 
of whom concur in rejecting the view that would refer the 
language of the Savior in John xiii : 17 to feet- washing and 
a full meal. They unanimously refer it to the feet- washing. 

Not only is such an interpretation not a necessary one, 
but it is not tenable. Nothing but the exigencies of a 
12 



178 NO COMMAND IN JOHN FOR THE AGAPE. 

jeopardized theory could have suggested such an interpre- 
tation. Nothing had as yet occupied their minds but the 
circumstances connected with the feet-washing. This im- 
pressive scene had just ended, and the Savior sat down to 
eat. Without anything intervening he at once said : " Know 
ye what I have done to you?" He makes the ceremony 
which had just ended yet more the absorbing topic of 
thought by talking about it. About it, and not about it 
and something else, save obedience to this example with 
its pregnant meaning. In the light of these facts read : "So 
after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, 
and was set down again, he said unto them : Know ye 
what I have done to you ? Ye call me Master and Lord ; 
and ye say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and 
Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one 
another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye 
should do as I have done to you. Yerily, verily, I say 
unto you, the servant is not greater than his Lord ; neither 
he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know 
these things, happy are ye if ye do them." To what does 
the phrase, these things, refer, but to what all the time he 
was talking about? Christ could not have properly said 
this thing, for before his mind was the whole scene of the 
feet-washing and the thoughts he had just uttered, to the 
latter of which he specifically refers as including the for- 
mer. Of the correctness of this interpretation we have not 
a shadow of doubt. ' 

But if this assumption of a command to eat a full meal 
in John xiii: 17 thus utterly vanishes, there is absolutely 
nothing left that can bear any resemblance to a Divine in- 
stitution. There is no precept from the lips of the Master 
which explicitly or implicitly makes a full meal an antece- 
dent ceremonial to the Communion. There only remains 



HJW THE AGAPE OEIGINATED. 179 

an acknowledged primitive custom, which doubtless ex- 
isted in Apostolic times, and for which we can be called 
upon to account. If the Lord did not command such a 
meal to be eaten how did it become a custom ? Can we as 
fully account for it without supposing it to haye been com- 
'manded as by supposing it to have been commanded ? So 
we believe. 

We have already seen the serious difficulties in the way 
of the claim of a Divine institution as seen in the history 
of the Agape. We have seen how Paul ignores it (if he 
does not repudiate it) when he tells the Corinthians what 
he received of the Lord. We have seen how, if Jude's 
reference to it is construed into an approval, he must also 
approve the association in it of wicked men with Christians. 
We have seen how the very men who among the an- 
cients are brought forward as witnesses for the existence 
of the Agape fail in some prominent instances to connect 
it with the Communion, and how differently they speak of 
the latter from the manner in which they mention the for- 
mer. We have seen how shortly after the opening of the 
second century the Communion was not always connected 
with the Agape. We have failed to find any claim advanced 
by any of the writers of the first centuries of the Christian 
era to a Divine command fot the observance of the Agape. 
And we have seen the Agape finally abandoned under the 
persecutions in Trajan's time, when the Christians could 
not be forced by torture and death to give up anything 
else. If to all these facts we add a reasonable account of 
the origin of the Agape as a human custom the case seems 
to be a very strong one. 

Let the following points be carefully observed : 
1. That the early Christians were principally Jews, in- 
cluding those addressed by Peter and Jude. 



180 HOW THE AGAPE ORIGINATED. 

2. That a Judai zing tendency, or a disposition to adhere 
to Jewish rites and ordinances, lingered in the church for 
a long period, so that even Paul and other Apostles kept 
Jewish feasts, etc. 

3. That Christ and his Disciples had come to constitute 
a family in their intimate and constant associations, and 
frequently "broke bread" together. So much had this 
become a custom that after his resurrection the Savior was 
revealed to two of his Disciples at Emmaus in the act of 
breaking bread (Luke xxiv : 30, 31). 

4. That the early Christians immediately after Christ's 
ascension "were together and had all things common" 
(Acts ii : 44 ; iv : 32). That accordingly they were in the 
habit, probably every evening at least, to have a common 
meal. 

5. That as churches were formed elsewhere outside of 
Jerusalem the force of circumstances compacted them to- 
gether into clannish societies or social guilds ; that the 
common fellowship-meal of the Jerusalem church or body 
of Christians was thus continued among them. 

6. That similar common meals were customary among 
the various ethnic races and tribes whither the Christian 
religion found its way. 

7. That as the Communion was instituted after a full 
meal — the Passover — so after these common meals the 
early Christians, possibly from the time of Christ's ascen- 
sion, celebrated the Communion. 

This is the conclusion to which many learned men have 
long since come. Dr. Lightfoot finds a precedent for the 
Agape or common meal in the koinonia of the Jews. He 
says that in the " evening of the Sabbath the Jews had 
their koinonia, or communion, when the inhabitants of the 



THE JEWISH KOINONIA. 181 

same city met together in a common place to eat." In 
Paul's time among the Gentile nations they had their oc- 
casions when a common meal was eaten {Doctrine of the 
Eucharist, p. 200). Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenseus, 
represents the eating of a meal in connection with the 
Communion as a commemoration of the Passover Supper 
and first Communion (Ibid, p. 61.) Kitto, describing the 
solemn Passover Supper at which the Communion was 
instituted, says : " "We need not look further to account 
for the institution of the Agape " (Cyclop. Bib. Lit, p. 82). 
" It [the Agape] had a precedent in the habits of the Bssene 
communities in Judea, and in the eranoi of Greek guilds 
or associations ; in the charisties of Eoman life, in the sus- 
sitia of Crete, in the pheiditia of Sparta" (Diet. Chr. Ant, 
p. 40). " The custom of enjoying such social repasts ex- 
isted also among the Greeks. With them these repasts 
were termed eranoi, club-feasts, which were associated with 
plans of mutual relief for charity toward the poor " (Langes 
Cor., p. 232). "The eranos was also called deipnon apo 
spuridos, where every guest brought his own dish " (Diet 
Gr. and Lat Ant, p. 419). This is just what was done 
at the original agapce, with which the author compares the 
eranoi. " In the account of the life of the first Disciples at 
Jerusalem, given in the Acts, it is implied that the chief 
actual meal of each day [the supper] was one in which 
they met as brothers, and which was either preceded or 
followed by the more solemn commemorative acts of break- 
ing bread and the drinking of the cup " (Smith's Diet of 
Bib.). According to Irenseus the Agape was observed in 
imitation of the Passover eaten by our Lord on the night 
of his betrayal (Diet Chr. Ant, p. 1420). 

Thus we have a consistent and natural theory, for the 



182 THE JEWISH K0HST0NIA. 

origin of a custom once so wide spread in the Christian 
church, but flourishing most under the very circumstances 
which rendered its introduction favorable, while churches 
were without houses of worship and constituted social 
guilds. More cannot be demanded. 



®J 



® 







Chapter VIII. 

The Proper Name for the Communion. 

HERE is an indirect argument for the Agape as a 
divine institution which requires separate treatment. 
Aside from this it seems to us that we have can- 
vassed this whole question of the Agape with such a degree 
of thoroughness and fairness that we need have no fears of 
being charged with bigotry in rejecting it as a divine insti- 
tution. Our all-sufficient answer, confirmed and established 
by an overwhelming combination of cumulative arguments, 
to those who ask why we do not practice it, is, that it was 
not instituted by the Lord ; that there is neither an explicit 
nor an implied precept for its observance. We have ar- 
rived at this conclusion in no hasty manner. We have 
canvassed the whole ground, and allowed, as we think, 
ample weight to every opposing fact and argument. There 
is but one thing that remains for our investigation ; one 
question which we need to answer, and one fact which re- 
quires explanation. This is the matter of the name of the 
institution which in this discussion we have invariablv 
called the Communion. Hence, our last division : 

IV. The proper name by which to designate the Com- 
munion. 

(183) 



184 the lord's supper kot the communion. 

We have deferred to this point an argument in favor of 
the Agape based upon the name "Lord's Supper," which 
occurs in I Cor. xi : 20. It is held that by this term the 
Apostle designates what later or in other localities was 
called the Agape; that 'it does not mean the Communion 
of bread and wine, and that, therefore, we do not celebrate 
or eat the Lord's Supper. To this we reply that there is 
at least reasonable and serious doubt whether " Lord's Sup- 
per " in the text quoted means the Communion. The ob- 
jections to such an interpretation are so serious that we 
could not accept it, and more especially so in controversy. 
It seems to us that Paul meant their common meal, at 
which some were left without anything and others feasted 
to satiety and inebriety ; or at most the Agape and the 
Communion together. So much we will concede. Does 
it, then, follow that we do not eat the Lord's Supper? As 
to name, it does in part, but nothing more. This supper 
which among the Corinthians was probably known as the 
Lord's Supper, was elsewhere and later called Agape. It 
was the very same meal which, as a divine institution, we 
have proved has no foundation. It does not weaken, much 
less invalidate, our argument to bring it forward under a 
different name. 

Neither is it a particle against our position that Paul 
calls it the "Lord's Supper." He may have so called it 
because by that name it was known at Corinth, while in 
Asia Minor it was called Agape according to Jude. It 
was the same meal, eaten in imitation of the last Passover 
kept by the Lord and his Disciples. In some places these 
meals were called Symposia (Balsomon), in others Koinai 
Trapezia (Chrysostom), in others Deipna Koina ((Ecumen- 
ius), and in other places by still other names. It is hence 
evident that "Lord's Supper," conceding that this in I Cor. 



NO SCRIPTURAL NAME FOR THE COMMUNION. 185 

xi: 20 means the Agape, was simply the current name of 
this common meal among the Corinthian Christians ; and 
we have already seen that in spite of the name Paul rather 
repudiates than approves it. 

If, as we have intimated, " Lord's Supper " (I Cor. xi : 
20) included both the full meal and the Communion, just 
as later Agape often most naturally did, it would still fur- 
ther weaken the objection. It would justify us in apply- 
ing the name to the essential part of the service so desig- 
nated, and then give this apparently natural paraphrase to 
Paul's words : " When ye come together to these meals ye 
do not eat the Lord's Supper as ye profess ; for that is a 
Communion, while ye each eat his own supper. Instead, 
therefore, of doing as ye have been doing, I will tell you 
what I received of the Lord." But whatever may be ac- 
cepted as indicated by this term, it will not do to build an 
ordinance upon it. It only occurs in this one text, and it 
undoubtedly had its origin in the fact that the Agape was 
eaten largely in imitation of the Lord's last supper, and by 
no means as indicating a divine institution. 

Indeed, it is held by some that the name " Lord's Sup- 
per" primarily denoted our Lord's own supper with his 
Disciples on the night of his betrayal, and was by a figure 
applied to the Agape as a memorial of it. Such a use is 
regarded as common during several centuries following 
the Council of Carthage (A. D. 418). 

Why, then, do we call the Communion the Lord's Sup- 
per ? We presume it was called so first because it was 
thought Paul meant the Communion in I Cor. xi : 20. 
Now it is so called for that reason by many, and by others 
because it is a well-known name for the Communion, and 
yet by others because the Communion was instituted by 
the Lord in place of the Passover Supper. That it is not 



186 NO SCRIPTUKAL NAME FOE THE COMMUNION. 

a full meal is no very serious objection to the name. 
Suppers were almost universal in those days, as we have 
shown, and the bread and wine could be called the Lord's 
Supper as instituted by the Lord for his church instead of 
the eranoi, etc. 

But we do not contend for names. We know that the 
Scriptures fail to furnish us an invariable name for the 
Communion, and that it is not profitable to contend about 
names (II Tim. ii : 14). Nor can we find any reason for 
preferring Lord's Supper to other names which might with 
perhaps better reasons be cited as Scriptural names. Ex- 
cept in the text under consideration (I Cor. xi : 20) we 
do not know that the name " Lord's Supper " was used 
definitely for the Communion until the time of Basil (A. 
D. 316 — 379). From his time on it was occasionally so 
used, but not generally until a later century. We would 
hence not object to the substitution of a name more fully 
sanctioned by Scriptural usage. 

What, then, is the proper name for the Communion? 
In case we reject Lord's Supper as unscriptural can we 
find a Scriptural name ? To this inquiry some have a ready 
answer. They assure us that " breaking of bread " is a 
Scriptural name. " Breaking of bread " we consider as an 
expression which primarily means to eat, to take food 
{Greenfield). It was an act preparatory to distributing 
food and eating by the master of the feast. Unless, there- 
fore, there is clear Scriptural authority for it, this name 
would be open to the same objection with Lord's Supper 
— that the Communion is no meal. Also to the further 
objection urged by some, that it would only designate one 
half of the Communion. But unquestioned biblical au- 
thority is sufficient answer to all objections. Have we 
such authority in this case? Some confidently assert that 



" BKEAKING BREAD — EUCHARIST. 187 

we have. Others deny it altogether, while some admit 
that "to break bread" means the Communion, and hence 
" breaking of bread" may a] so, though such use does not 
occur in the New Testament. The expression "breaking 
of bread " occurs only three times in the New Testament. 
In Luke xxiv: 35 it is not claimed that it means the 
Communion. In Acts ii : 42, 46 such an interpretation is 
disputed by Whitby and Wolfius in their comments on 
these texts, by Dr. Lechler in Lange's Acts, by Dr. 
Clarke and others. Clarke says : " Breaking bread was 
that act which preceded a feast or meal, and which was 
performed by the master of the house when he pronounced 
the blessing; what we call grace before meat" {Com. on 
Acts). Hence as a name for the Communion this phrase 
stands on a slender foundation. 

We are aware that "breaking of bread" in Acts ii : 
42, 46 is rendered "breaking of the Eucharist" in the 
Syriac version, but that is simply no translation, for "bread " 
does not mean Eucharist. Besides, then Eucharist would 
be the name of the Communion. In Acts xx : 7 the Syriac 
again renders "came together to break the Eucharist," 
while several commentators who deny that in Acts ii : 42, 46 
the Communion is intended, concede that in Acts xx : 7 
such reference is not to be disputed. But this conclusion 
is not without its difficulties. The expression occurs twice 
in Acts xx., viz : in vs. 7 and 11, and each time it refers to 
the same thing. Hence the two count but as one instance. 
Now that Luke does not necessarily mean the Communion 
in this instance is rendered certain from a different use of 
" breaking bread " as above seen. Again, a few chapters 
further on (xxvii: 35) he uses the same phrase — "had 
broken " — which occurs in chapter xx : 11, where he says : 
" And when he [Paul] had thus spoken, he took bread, 



188 IS COMMUNION A SCEIPTUEAL NAME? 

and gave thanks to God in presence of them all : and 
when he had broken it, he began to eat." Does that mean 
the Communion ? Certainly not. Neither does " to break 
bread " in chapter xx : 7, 11, mean the Communion. It 
doubtless means, as Dr. Clarke says many hold, the full 
meal which was frequently partaken of in those days by 
the Christians in their religious assemblies. That "break- 
ing of bread " ever was used as a name for the Communion 
we are not prepared to affirm, though Dr. Waterland gives 
a solitary example from an Epistle to the Ephesians from 
Ignatius. But it is a very doubtful case. 

Upon Scriptural grounds objections can be raised to other 
names somewhat in use in primitive times, but especially 
after the days of the Fathers. Thus Clement who lived in 
the latter part of the first and in the early part of the sec- 
ond century calls it Oblation, including, doubtless, the 
Agape, and having special reference to it. But in these 
times this name needs no investigation. 

Sacrament is a name still in quite general use to desig- 
nate the Communion. It is not found in the Scriptures, 
nor can it justly be regarded as an equivalent for any 
Scriptural term connected with the Communion. Its ear- 
liest use dates back to the early part of the second century, 
and later it was almost universally accepted. 

Others would defend Eucharist as a proper and Scriptural 
name for the Communion. It is not found at all in this 
sense in the Scriptures. It is, and for centuries has been, 
as famous as any other name for the Communion. It first 
occurs in about A. D. 107 in Ignatius' Epistle to the church 
at Smyrna. After that it is found in all ecclesiastical 
writings. The name is taken from the account of the in- 
stitution of the Communion — "And he took the cup and 
gave thanks " (eucharisteeses). Evidently the ordinance is 



IS COMMUNION A SCRIPTURAL NAME f 189 

not called Eucharist, and the giving of thanks is not pecu- 
liar to it (see John vi : 11, 23 ; Matt, xv : 36 ; Mark viii : 6). 

We need not dwell on other names which have obtained 
currency at different times, such as "Sacrifice," " Memo- 
rial," Passover," "Mass," &c, for among these we cannot 
find one which is not open to more serious objections than 
lie against those which we have examined. 

We are then shut up to one or the other of these alter- 
natives — either we can select a name from among the least 
objectionable ones above examined, such as "Breaking 
bread," "Lord's Supper," etc. ; or there must be some other 
name not found in the above list which has more un- 
equivocal authority in its favor in Grod's word. It may be 
at once said : " The Scriptural name is Communion" It 
is not so certain. Communion is a Scriptural word, but it 
does not hence follow that it is the name of this ordinance. 
Indeed, its use in the Scriptures might render it objection- 
able as a name for the ordinance. What communion hath 
light with .darkness " (II Cor. vi: 14)? " The communion 
of the Holy Ghost" (II Cor. xiii: 14). In other places it 
is translated fellowship. Paul does not call this ordinance 
the Communion, as may be supposed (I Cor. x : 16). He 
says the effect of this service is the communion of the body 
and blood of Christ. His language gave occasion for the 
name, just as his language in the next chapter (I Cor. xi : 20) 
gave occasion for the name Lord's Supper. And while the 
latter name first appears as a distinctive title for the ordi- 
nance in the time of Basil, who lived A. D. 316-379 ; the 
former is so used first in a letter addressed to Cyprian 
about the middle of the third century. It, however, came 
into general use only about the same time with Lord's 
Supper. 



190 COMMUNION OE LOEDS SUPPEE. 

From the foregoing it will be seen what difficulties beset 
the question of a proper title for this ordinance. We gen- 
erally divide that honor between Communion and Lord's 
Supper, knowing well the objections which may justly be 
urged against both. If any one can furnish us a Scriptural 
name or term which is open to fewer or less weighty ob- 
jections we shall be ready to adopt it in place of these. 
Till then we shall call it either the Communion or the 
Lord's Supper. 





Chapter IX. 

Breaking Bread. 

HE expression "breaking bread/' which occurs in 
the Acts of the Apostles, is by some understood to 
refer to the Agape, at the close of which it is affirmed 
the Communion was celebrated. Although we have no 
positive proof of such connection between the Agape and 
the Communion in the early days of the Apostles, yet a 
presumption has been established in favor of such a con- 
nection before the close of the Apostolic era. On the other 
hand, there are those who claim that u breaking of bread " 
is synonymous with the Communion. This is in direct con- 
tradiction to the presumption just indicated. Those who 
hold this latter view affirm that the primitive Christians 
communed or broke bread every Lord's day. And as we 
are everywhere known as strenuous defenders of primitive 
Christianity, we are censured for our departure from Apos- 
tolic precedent in this respect. We cannot plead guilty to 
such a charge. We do not, in the first place, know that 
the primitive Christians practiced "breaking of bread " 
every Lord's day ; and, in the second place, we do not know 
that " breaking of bread " means the Communion. Should 
these two points be established it would still remain an 

(191) 



192 WEEKLY COMMUNIONS. 

open question whether weekly Communion is obligatory 
or advisable in the absence of anything like a command to 
that effect. But for the present such a question need not 
be raised. We hence propose to confine ourself to the 
points now at issue, and hence shall seek in a calm and 
judicial manner to discuss the following two questions : 

1. Did the primitive Christians meet every Lord's day 
to break bread (Acts xx : 7) ? 

2. Is breaking of bread the same as the Communion 
(Acts ii: 42)? 

We shall take up these two questions separately and in 
regular order. Hence, 

1. Did the primitive Christians meet every Lord's day 
to break bread ? On this point we are, so far as w r e know, 
wholly dependent on Scripture testimony. We are not 
aware that any one of the Fathers testifies directly to the 
point involved. They do testify that the Communion 
was celebrated every week in their time, and base this 
practice upon the traditionary weekly " breaking of bread " 
of the first Christians ; but we do not know of one who 
can add to the testimony of Scripture itself on this point. 
Pliny, Justin Martyr and others can be cited for the second 
century, but they give us no additional data for the Apos- 
tolic practice. 

The testimony of the Scriptures is as follows: " And 
they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' teachings and 
fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers " (Acts 
ii: 42). "And upon the first day of the week, when we 
were gathered together to break bread " (Acts xx : 7). 
We do not quote the passage from 1 Cor. xi: 20, to 
which the advocates of weekly Communion cite us, nor 
the one in 1 Cor. x: 16, because in neither passage is there 
any intimation as to the frequency with which the Lord's 



BIBLE SILENT AS TO FREQUENCY OF COMMUNION. 193 

Supper was partaken of or the bread broken ; nor is there 
any evidence that the two are identical, as we shall see 
later. 

Having then in these two texts from the Acts the sum 
of all the testimony of a direct character, what is the con- 
clusion ? Neither of the texts quoted says anything about 
the frequency of this practice of breaking bread. The first 
only assures us that the converts u continued steadily * 

* * in the breaking of bread and the prayers." 

How frequently the breaking of bread occurred it does not 
as much as intimate. The second states that upon the first 
day of the week they were assembled to break bread. It 
does not at all say that this was done every first day of the 
week. Hence, all that can be said, so far as this testimony 
is concerned, is that the matter is entirely open. They 
may have met every week, or at first every day ; they 
may have met less frequently. 

This conclusion cannot be weakened or modified by any- 
thing found in the Scriptures. In another and parallel 
passage, generally confounded with the first one above 
quoted, we read: "And they continued daily with one 
accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to 
house " (Acts ii : 46). But observe, it does not say how 
frequently they were in the habit of breaking bread, 
although the presumption seems to favor daily breaking of 
bread. The reading of these texts, together with the tes- 
timony for frequent Communions in the second century, 
has left the impression upon most writers on this subject 
"that in the days of the Apostles [breaking of bread] was 
frequent ; either every day, or at least every Lord's day " 
(Waterland.) For at least weekly breaking of bread we 
can cite a dozen authors lying at our elbow. This should be 
a competent jury to test a question of fact, and yet, in the 
13 



194 IS BREAKING BREAD THE COMMUNION? 

face of this verdict, we doubt whether the testimony fully 
justifies it. Still, we are willing to concede that there are 
strong probabilities, in addition to the testimony cited, in 
favor of the breaking of bread, at least at Jerusalem, quite 
frequently for a time, and with considerable frequency at 
other places. 

Having disposed of our first inquiry we now come to 
the second and vital question in this controversy. It is as 
follows : 

2. Is breaking of bread the same as the Communion ? 

The question is usually stated in this way, viz : Is 
breaking of bread the same as the Lord's Supper? We 
are then referred to Acts ii : 42 and xx : 7, and to I Cor 
xi: 20, where the expression "Lord's Supper" occurs. 
Accepting this statement we must, in the first place, know 
what is meant by the Lord's Supper. As we understand 
it the Communion is intended. Hence, let us call it by 
this name, as we have done without exception throughout 
these pages. Was, then, this breaking of bread the Com- 
munion ? We answer in the negative. The reasons for 
this answer are as follows : 

1. There is no evidence that the name Lord's Supper, 
by which we now so generally call the Communion, and 
which occurs in I Cor. xi : 20, designated this ordinance 
in Apostolic times. Upon this error quite a good deal of 
the argument for a weekly Communion is based. The 
Lord's Supper of Paul (I Cor. xi) is made identical with 
the breaking of bread in Acts, and then confounding these 
with the Communion the conclusion is reached that the 
Communion was celebrated weekly, if not daily. We will 
not dispute as to the identity of the meals spoken of by 
Paul and Luke, but neither speaks of the Communion. 
According to the most reliable testimony there is no au- 



loed's supper not the communion. 195 

thority for saying that the Lord's Supper meant the Com- 
munion prior to the close of the third century. Dr. Water- 
land says : " Some Fathers as high as the fourth century 
thought '' the name was so used. But if the Lord's Supper 
and the breaking of bread in the Acts are identical, and if 
the supper was not the Communion, then the breaking of 
bread was not. The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Table 
are very intimately connected, yet for more than three 
hundred years, says Dr. Smith, after the institution of the 
Communion the altar is but once called a table in the gen- 
uine remains of Christian writers. This exception occurs 
in an epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of 
Rome, A. D. 254. This is a clear indication that the 
Lord's Supper was not the Communion. 

2. To break bread, or breaking of bread, means to take 
a meal, or it is equivalent to it; and generally, if not in- 
variably, designates the partaking of a common meal with 
a host. Thence the expression. It was the duty of the 
host giving the meal to preside at the table and to break 
the bread and give thanks. It was the same as if we would 
now speak of cutting bread, which is done before each 
meal. " The Jewish people had nothing similar to our 
high-raised loaf; their bread was made broad and thin, 
and was consequently very brittle, and to divide these there 
was no need of a knife." The expression was common be- 
fore the Communion was instituted. Hence, when Jesus 
gave a common miraculous meal to the multitude, as ar- 
chitriclinus he brake the bread (Matt, xiv : 9 ; xv : 36, et al). 

After His crucifixion, in the presence of two of his 
Disciples at Emmaus, the Savior in like manner "took 
bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them " (Luke 
xxiv. 30). This was not celebrating the Communion. 
Paul did the same, acting in a manner as host, when a 



196 BREAKING BREAD NOT THE COMMUNION. 

prisoner on shipboard. It is said: "And when he had 
said this, and had taken bread, he gave thanks in the 
presence of all, and he brake it and began to eat (Acts 
xxvii : 35). Paul was not administering the Communion 
here. In Acts ii : 42 we are informed that the converts 
"continued steadfast * * * in breaking of bread," etc. 
This is enlarged upon in verse 46. So Henry, who under- 
stands it of the Communion : " They broke bread from 
house to house ; not in the Temple, for the Eucharist was 
peculiar to the Christian institutes, and therefore they ad- 
ministered that ordinance in private houses." But as to 
this having been the Communion we differ from him. To 
our mind Luke says : They continued steadfastly in the 
Apostles' teaching and fellowship, entertaining each other 
at home, etc. The Authorized version says they continued 
daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread 
from house to house." The Ee vision, sustained by the 
highest authorities (Alexandere, Lange, Clark, et al.\ says, 
"breaking bread at home" The converts living at Jeru- 
salem at their homes entertained the strangers and perhaps 
one another. Hence the Evangelist says : " Breaking bread 
at home did eat their meat with gladness of heart." Dr. 
Lechler is hence amply justified in saying : " It is true that 
Luke describes the manner in which the believers partook 
of bodily food * * * still, the phrase Man avion [breaking 
bread] includes a holy element of worship, passing over 
into the relations of the natural and bodily life." He also, 
as Henry, makes verse 46 an enlargement of verse 42, in 
which he says the Agape is referred to, or what was later 
so called in some places. Hence there is nothing here to 
show that the Communion is meant. 

Dr. Clarke says on verse 42 : " Breaking of bread was 
the act which preceded a feast or meal, and which was per- 



COMMON MEALS AMONG DISCIPLES. 197 

formed by the master of the house when he pronounced 
the blessing ; what we would call grace before meat." And 
on verse 46 he says: " This signifies that select companies 
who were contiguous to each other frequently ate together 
at their respective lodgings on their return from public 
worship." 

3. These common meals naturally became customary 
among the Disciples from the beginning. Christ and the 
twelve had been breaking bread together for more than three 
years. Similar common meals were partaken of among Jews 
and Gentiles. And now after the Crucifixion the custom 
would naturally become more deeply rooted by the last meal 
of Christ with his Apostles, which for so many years was by 
way of distinction known as the Lord's Supper. The meal 
in imitation of this was later also called the Agape, to dis- 
tinguish it from our Lord's last supper, or what for brevity 
was called the Lord's Supper, not the Communion. It is 
the informal breaking of bread spoken of in Acts. And 
this last (or Lord's) Supper, and meals in imitation thereof, 
or the breaking of bread, have been, by very many authors, 
steadily confounded with the Communion. Dr. Waterland 
states that even the text I Cor. xi : 20 was not construed, 
before the fourth century, to mean the Communion, and 
that the name Lord's Supper was not used before that time. 

Nearly all our authorities, as intimated in speaking of 
frequent Communions, confound the repeated common 
meals of those early days, the breaking of bread of Luke, 
with the Communion. Lange, however, says on Acts ii : 
42 : " They adhered also to the religious meals (the agapce)." 
Dr. Smith also makes the distinction very pointedly. He 
says : " The custom which prevailed in the Apostolic 
church of meeting at fixed times for a common meal of 
which all partook as brothers." Guericke, in his Church 



198 WEEKLY COMMUNION NOT REQUIRED. 

History, speaking of the Agape or love-feast, refers to 
Acts ii : 46, and I Cor. xi : 20, and states that they were 
held "in commemoration of the last meal of Christ with 
his Disciples which preceded the. institution of the sacra- 
ment." In view of these facts we are justified in conclud- 
ing with Dr. Lange, "that the Jclasei tou artou [breaking of 
bread], in the New Testament, is not as a rule the same 
as the Lord's Supper" [Communion]. Spencer also says 
specifically of Acts ii: 43, that u Masei tou artou and 
hoinonia are put, by hendiadys, for a common participation 
of bread broken." We seriously doubt whether any proof 
can be adduced to show that the Communion is anywhere 
referred to in the New Testament, besides the records of 
the institution, save in I Cor. xi : 23, and there it is not 
called the Lord's Supper. 

But even if weekly Communions coiild be established, 
that would not render them obligatory. The simple rea- 
son is this: The Lord. said, in instituting the rite: "This 
do in remembrance of me ; " or, as Paul has it : " This do 
as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me." And we have 
no data by which to determine authoritatively how often. 
We think there is every reason for saying that we should 
do it not less than once a year, and very good reasons for 
doing it more frequently. 



0X, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




022 



69 601 3 



